' This Civil Revision arose out of the following circumstances:-- ' House No,310 situated in Chur Harpal, Rawalpindi, was owned and possessed by Jalal Din. He was the paternal uncle of Muhammad Ashraf petitioner herein and maternal uncle of Mst. Skandar Jan respondent No,1 herein. Jalal Din allegedly made a will of the house on 25-2-1966 in favour of respondent No,1. He later died and respondent No,1 sold the house in favour of Muhammad Yasin respondent No,2. Having come to know about this transfer, the petitioner brought a declaratory suit, challenging the validity of the so-called will but his suit was dismissed on 29-9-1984 for the reason of its defective form, limitation, and non joinder of necessary parties. However, the suit was held to have been correctly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. Issue No,6 relating to the validity of will and the subsequent transfer of the house by respondent No,1 in favour of respondent No,2 was decided against the respondents. Thus where the petitioner filed an appeal against the dismissal of the suit, the respondents filed cross-objections against the findings of the trial Court on issue No,6.
3. The learned Additional District Judge, who dealt with the appeal and cross-objections, came to the conclusion that it was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. He, therefore, returned the memo. Of appeal to the petitioner and cross-objections to the respondents for presentation to the proper Court as it is obvious from his order, dated 25-4-1985. It appears that instead of taking that appeal to the High Court, he filed Civil Revision No,480-D of 1985, challenging the said order, dated 25-4- 1985. However, on 17-11-1985 his counsel withdrew the civil revision in order to file 'proper proceedings before the proper Court.' Subsequently he brought R.F.A. No,2 of 1986 but the same was sent back to the learned District Judge, Rawalpindi, for disposal as meanwhile his pecuniary jurisdiction stood enhanced. The appeal was entrusted to a learned Additional District Judge who, vide his judgment and decree, dated 1-12-1987, dismissed the same as time-barred on the ground that it had been filed after about a year. Aggrieved by this order he came up in revision to this Court.
The revision petition can be accepted on the short ground that the learned Additional District Judge, vide paragraph No,5 of his order, dated 25-4-1985, had come to the conclusion that the value of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was Rs,400,000. For lack of jurisdiction he had returned the memo. Of appeal to the appellant (now petitioner) and the cross objections to the respondent for presentation to the proper Court. As already indicated, he fast challenged that order in revision but after withdrawing the same, brought R.FA. No,2 of 1986 in this Court. Though in the memo. Of appeal he indicated Rs,200 as the value for the purpose of jurisdiction, yet the fact remained that the learned Additional District Judge in the aforesaid order, dated 25-4-1985, had given a clear finding that the value of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction was Rs,400,000. This being so, the Office should not have sent back the appeal to the learned District Judge after the enhancement of his pecuniary jurisdiction as it was still beyond that and it should have been kept pending in this Court for decision, with all the relevant objections regarding limitation etc. As a result, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was without jurisdiction and the same is set aside. Consequently R.FA. No,2 of 1986 shall be deemed to be still pending in this Court.