GUL ZARIN K1ANI, J.- This appeal under-Order XLHI, Rule 1(a) of Civil Procedure Code is against an order of learned lower Appellate Court dated 7-11- 1991 returning a memorandum erf appeal for its presentation to proper Court, because it exceeded its monetary jurisdiction. It raises few short points, though interesting one. However, a brief survey of fads leading to this appeal is necessary.
2. A plot under survey No. 195/1-C, Sector V-B, measuring 8 Marlas, 188 sq.feet in Area Development Scheme, Khayaban-i-Sir Syed, Rawalpindi, was allotted on 26-9-1977 to the appellant. Later, in accordance with sanctioned plan a house was constructed on the plot by the appellant. On 12-5- 1984, appellant 'agreed for sale of the house to respondent for a price of Rs. 3,50,000/-. An agreement to sell was reduced in writing on the same days. It recited payment of Rs.2,60,000/- in each at the-time of execution of agreement and balance consideration in die sum of R.I. 90,000/- was retained by the proposed vendee for payment of an outstanding liability in favour of House buildings Finance Corporation. Simultaneously, a registered general power of attorney was executed by the appellant in favour of the proposed vendee. Presumably, it was intended for effectuating the transfer of the house as agreed in the agreement to sell executed between the parties. On 14-1-1985, aforesaid general power of attorney was rescinded by the appellant through a registered-deed. On 11-2-1985, appellant brought a dial suit against the respondent to have it declared that the agreement to sell attributed to him, in the deed dated 12-5-1984 was null and void and also claimed decree for physical possession of the house from him as a consequential relief. It was stated that the agreement to sell suffered from fraud and misrepresentation perpetrated upon the appellant. Respondent resisted the suit. Amongst several defences, it was averred that the plaint in the suit was liable to payment of ad-valorem Court-fee on the, agreed consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- . Prior to the institution of afore-mentioned civil suit by the appellant, the respondent had also instituted a civil suit against the appellant on 23-1-1985, claiming therein that rescission of the deed of general power of attorney was illegal and the plaintiff in the suit was entitled to act still as general attorney of the defendant-appellant. Appellant resisted the suit and also took an objection to its valuation on the score of less payment of Court-fee on the plaint. As rival suits covered common subject-matter for adjudication, their trial was consolidated and a single set of issues were settled in the trial Court. These have been correctly set out in the judgment of the trial Court and need not be reproduced. Amongst the issues framed, reference only two issues suffice for the present. These are issues No. 4 and 5-C. They run as:-
(4) Whether the plaintiffs suit is under valued? If so, then what is the correct valuation? OPD (5-C) Whether the suits of the defendant is under valued? If so, then what is the correct valuation?
OPP
3. Issue No. 4 related to the valuation of the suit filed by the respondent, whereas issue No. 5-C related to the suit filed by the appellant. Under Issue No. 4, the trial Court observed that since it was a simple suit for declaration, its value was correctly assessed at Rs. 200/-. On issue No. 5-C, However, the Court took the view that the actual vaule of this suit should he at Rs. 3,50,000/- at which the disputed property was agreed to be sold by the defendant to the plaintiff. The Court observed thus, "As this suit is for declaration and possession, so apparently this suit is incorrectly valued at Rs.200/-. The actual value of this suit should be at Rs. 3,50,000/- at which the disputed property was agreed to be sold by the defendant to the plaintiff. At the plaintiff has not brought on file any enhanced value of the suit property, therefore, the defendant was bound to fix value of his suit at Rs. 3,50,000/- at least, and pay the Court-fee accordingly. As he has not done so, therefore, certainly his suit is badly undervalued." Upon examination of the merits, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent and dismissed that brought by the appellant on 10-12-1990. Judgment was common, but separate decree-sheets were prepared in each suit. Appellant filed two separate appeals in the court of learned District Judge, Rawalpindi. Appeal filed in suit No. 22 of 1990 brought by the plaintiff and dismissed by the trial Court was placed on the cause-list of Syed Ijaz Hussain Gillani, learned Addl. District Judge, Rawalpindi, who found that since the value of the subject-matter in appeal determined by-the trial Court at Rs. 3,50,000/- exceeded jurisdiction vested in his Court, he was j incompetent to hear the appeal, and, consequently returned it for presentation to 1 the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is this order of the learned Judge below that is being appealed from. Appeal was filed in this Court on 11-12-1991. Connected appeal addressed against decree- in favour of the respondent is still in the lower Appellate Court and has not been dealt with on merits as yet.
4. On behalf of the appellant, it is contended by Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari learned counsel that since the decree-sheet prepared by the trial Court omitted a clear statement on the valuation of the suit for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction, appeal preferred against it was rightly taken to the District Court, which on its part was obliged to entertain hear and decide it on merits. By reference to the provisions contained in Order, 20, Rules 6 and 7, Civil Procedure Code, it was argued that the decree was defective and since the appeal lay only from the decree and not the judgment, in default of a specific statement on the valuation of civil suit for purposes of jurisdiction, appellant was amply justified in taking his appeal to the Court of learned District Judge. I have found considerable difficulty in appreciating this view-point of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Section 33 of Civil Procedure Code provides that the Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment, and, no such judgment, a decree shall follow. Order 20, Rules 6 and 7 of the Code provide manner for preparation and drawing up of the decree and also enumerate its contents. Forms prescribed for decrees in various kinds of suits are given in Appendix-D of Civil P.C.
Neither the Rules nor the prescribed Forms provided for a statement regarding valuation of the suit for purposes of Court-fee, and, jurisdiction in the decree prepared by the Court. However, High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I, Chapter 3, Part B, provide that the value of the suit as fixed by the plaintiff or as determined by the court in the event of its being disputed should, therefore, be always stated on the face of the final judgment and decree in the suit. There is no doubt that the decree must agree with the judgment, which it follows. Be that as it may, defect in the form of decree would hardly detract from its appealability under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Assuming that there was some omission in the decree- sheet, the appellant could have taken recourse to the Court preparing it for rectifying the error. In terms of Order 41, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by a copy of decree appealed from and (unless the Appellate Court dispenses therewith) of the judgment on which it is founded. Both the documents i.e. The judgment and decree are essential for filing of an appeal. In the instant case, copy of judgment was available with the appellant and his learned counsel, who had taken the appeal to the Court of learned District Judge. The judgment, appellant was appealing from, contained a clear finding that value of the subject-matter of the suit was fixed at Rs. 3,50,000/- . It was inconceivable that the learned counsel to whom the documents were taken for preparation and filing of appeal may have omitted to read the judgment of the court, and, more particularly, the finding on issue No. 5-C relating to valuation of the suit filed by the appellant. Forum of appeal is determined by section 18 of Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. Pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court is limited to hearing of appeals where the value of the original suit in which decree was made did not exceed Rs. 2,00,000/-. Beyond it, appeal goes to the High Court. In the case under consideration, value of the suit was determined at Rs. 3,50,000/-. It clearly exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court to hear the appeal from the decree passed in the suit. Appellant could not unilaterally alter the valuation fixed by the court, for chossing of a forum of appeal. Refer, Babu Jan Muhammad and others. Vs. Dr. Abdul Ghafoor and others PLD 1966 Supreme Court 461.
Therefore, learned lower Appellate Court did not err in holding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and rightly directed return memorandum of appeal. In taking this course, the Court did not commit any error of jurisdiction or that of procedure. It may be of interest to observe that the appellant did not challenge the decree of the trial court in appeal before this court. Limitation prescribed for it has already run out. Further an ing memorandum of appeal to be presented to proper court was not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(a), Civil Procedure Code. Cases in Hari Chand Vs. Madan Lai and others A.I.R. 1930 Lahore 832, Kandhai Mahton and another Vs. Prasad Mahton and another A.I.R. 1952 Patna 290, Ramehandra Vs. Pannalal - A.I.R. 1954 Rajasthan 191, Pehlwan Vs. Abdul Sattar and others - 1974 Law Notes 758, support it. Neither verbal nor written request was put forth for treating this appeal as a petition in revision. However, since the order passed by the Court of appeal below was not erroneous, no purpose would have been served in taking up the matter in revision. Finally, it may be observed that learned counsel had not questioned the finding of the trial court on issue No. 5-C.
5. The result is that the appeal fails, and is dismissed in limine.