' Brief facts of the case according to the petitioners are that respondent brought suit for recovery amounting to Rs,11,803 against the petitioners in the Court of Tehsildar/AC-I in respect of the suit land siutated in Chak No,372/WB, Tehsil Lodhran, District Multan. The suit was decreed accordingly on 2-6-1986.. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged that order before the Collector and Additional Commissioner (Revenue). Hence this revision petition under section 84 of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tehsildar/AC-I could not have decided a suit exceeding Rs,10,000 under the Tenancy Act. Value of one of the present suits was Rs,11,803. The order of the Tehsildar/AC-I, dated 2-6-1986 was therefore patently illegal and void and hence liable to be set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained in rebuttal that this point was never taken up by the petitioners at any stage of the litigation previously and hence cannot be raised in second revision petition. The learned' counsel also maintained that the second revision petition before the Board of Revenue was incompetent as held in PLD 1986 Pesh. 67 and 1975 SCMR 787.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. From the perusal of the record it is evident that the objection regarding value of the suit was not raised at the first available opportunity by the petitioners before the Tehsildar/AC-I at the time of framing the issues and the suit was decreed against them. Again this point was not agitated before the AC/Collector Lodhran, in appeal by the petitioners and the appeal was consequently dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners did not raise this point in their revision before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan. It is a well-settled law that the point not raised before the trial Court or at the appellate stage cannot be raised subsequently at a revisional stage. This view finds support from PLD 1986 Lahore 242, in which it has been held that objection to pecuniary jurisdiction of trial Court neither raised before trial Court nor any issue claimed in respect thereof, such plea could not be entertained at the appellate stage. Objection as to jurisdiction, even if it was raised at proper time, appellate Court before giving effect to such objection had to be satisfied that valuation had prejudicially affected disposal of the case on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioners had not made any mention of the merits of the case and has not addressed the Court at all regarding the merits of other two connected suits between the parties valued at Rs,7,152 and Rs,4,137 which leads to the presumption that the petitioners do not have any objections as far as merits of the cases are concerned. Therefore his plea regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the Tehsildar/AC-I cannot be taken into consideration at this stage.
5. Apart from the petitioners' plea being without any force at this stage, I find that the revision petition is time-barred to the extent of 28 days. However, vide Lahore High Court's order dated 25- 9-1989, the petitioners were allowed to file the revision petition in the Board of Revenue and therefore this delay has been condoned to decide the cases on merits.
6. Since the sole ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not available to the petitioners at this stage, the revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The other contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent regarding maintainability of the second revision petition need not be adjudicated.