MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-This appeal has arisen from preemption suit filed by respondents and is directed against judgment and decree dated 11.3.1984 passed by learned lower appellate Court accepting the appeal of the respondents against judgment and decree dated 20.7.1983, passed by learned trial Court through which the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed.
2. It is not necessary to discuss the facts of the case as also the merits of the case as the appeal is liable to be accepted on a purely legal point. The suit filed by respondents for possession of land through preemption was valued at Rs.81,543.30 for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction vide para 7 of the plaint a certified copy of which is attached with this appeal. This amount was stated to be the 15 times the amount of Rs.5436.22 which was stated to be net profits accrued in the last preceding year in respect of land in dispute. The contents of this para were controverted in the following words:-- ((Urdu Taxts))
3. The learned trial Court framed an issue whether the suit for purposes of court-fee was improperly valued. No issue was framed whether the same was correctly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction. The respondents filed appeal before the learned lower appellate Court in which an objection was taken by the present appellants that the said Court was not vested with pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the said Court was vested with jurisdiction to hear the appeals regarding suits the valuation of which was not beyond Rs.50,000.00. This objection was met by the respondents by pointing out that according to the copy of jamabandi for the year 1966- 67 placed on the record the land revenue assessed in respect of land was Rs. 194.96 as such 30 the of it became Rs. 5848.80 which under the law was the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction as provided in section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act. The learned lower appellate Court held that the said Court was vested with pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal. Before recording this finding no opportunity was admittedly given to the present appellants to produce any evidence to rebut the said documentary evidence on which reliance was placed i.e. Jamabandi for the year 1966-67. It was necessary before recording any finding that the appellants should have been granted opportunity to produce evidence because the suit was filed in the year 1980 and it was with reference to the said order that it should have been decided as to whether the land was assessed to Land Revenue to attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Suit Valuation Act because if it was proved that at that the the land was not assessed to land revenue the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction according to law as it then existed was to be assessed at the market price of the land which was to be determined according to 15 the the net profits accruing in the last preceding year. Since the appellants were not given opportunity to produce evidence, therefore, they were condemned unheard. The judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court is not sustainable on this short ground.
4. This appeal is accepted. The judgment and decree dated 11.3.1984 passed by learned lower appellate Court is set aside. The following additional issue is framed as issue No. 5-A.
Issue No. 5-A. What is the value of suit for purposes of jurisdiction?
O.P.Parties.
5. The case is remanded to the learned lower appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on the additional issue framed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.