FAZAL KARIM, J.-This first appeal under the Arbitration Act, 1940 by Shahalam, appellant is directed against the order of the Civil Judge, Sargodha dated 16.4.1990 by which the award made the rule of the court.
2. The facts can be shortly stated as follows. The land in suit measuring 102 kanals situate in Chak No. 110, Shamali, Tehsil and District Sargodha was allotted to the appellant, Shahalam as a Mangla Dart affectee. On 13.9.1989, the appellant is alleged to have executed a general power of attorney in favour of Allah Yar. On 10.10.1989, the appellant entered into an arbitration agreement through the said Allah Yar saying that the disputes had arisen between him and the respondent Mst. Matloob Bibi in respect of the land in question and that as they had failed to resolve their differences, they had appointed the second respondent, Ghulam Shabhir, as an arbitrator. The arbitrator entered upon the reference and given his award on 12.10.1989. The award is Ex. C.2. In giving the award the arbitrator said that he had summoned the parties, heard them, t recorded their statements, made inquiries and had reached the conclusion that the appellant had sold his rights in the land to Mst.
Matloob Bibi for Rs. 15,000/-.
3. . Mst. Matloob Biti filed an application in the court of learned Civil Judge on 7.11.1989 praying for the award to be made the rule of the court. On 16.4.1990, a confessional written statement was filed on behalf of Shahalam through his attorney Allah Yar. Earlier on 12.12.1989, one Muhammad Ramzan had made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C, saying that he was a relative of Shahalam, that Shahalam had not constituted any body as his attorney; that the documents basis of Mst. Matloob Bibi's claim were forged documents; that the property In question was worth lacs of rupees and that he should be allowed to join the proceedings. Shahalam, appellant also filed a written statement contesting Mst. Matloob Bibi's application; his case was that he had never constituted Allah Yar as his attorney, that the power of attorney, the arbitration agreement, and the award were all forged and fictitious documents.
4. On the parties pleadings, the learned Civil Judge formulated the following issues on 6.2.90.
1. Whether general power of attorney in favour of Allah Yar by Shahalam Khan respondent is forged, collusive and illegal. OPR.
2. Relief.
He adjourned the case for the appellant's evidence; at the same time he also directed that the power of attorney should be sent to the Finger Print Bureau for examination of the disputed thumb- impressions. The - proceedings were then adjourned from time to time till 16.4.1990. On that day, the learned Civil Judge noticed that the report of the expert had been received; that according to that report the disputed thumb impressions were that of Shahalam and holding that the appellant had constituted Allah Yar as his attorney and had gone bade upon the transaction at the instigation of his relatives proceeded tb record the statement of Allah Yar and that of the arbitrator Ghulam Shabhir and to make the award rule of the court by his order dated 16.4.1990. By the same order he also rejected the application of Muhammad Ramzan. The statement of Allah Yar was to the effect that he had as attorney of Shahalam appointed Ghulam Shabhir as arbitrator and that the award given by the arbitrator was acceptable to him and the statement of Ghulam Shabhir was that he had acted as an arbitrator; that he had given the award Ex. C.2 and that he had no objection to the award being made the rule of the court.
5. The appellant, Shahalam, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Sargodha. In para 4-C of his appeal he said that the land in question was worth Rs. 50/60 thousands per acre.
Calculating the value of the land at that rate, the learned District Judge held that the value of the land was Rs.6,37, 000 and that as the valuation was more than his pecuniary jurisdiction, he could not hear the appeal. Accordingly, he returned the memorandum of appeal for presentation to this court.
6. Before me two cases have been cited on the question of valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction. They are; MA. Jalil Vs. Group Capt. (Retd.) Salah-ud-Din Khan (P.L.J. 1983 Lhr. 622) and Province of Punjab through Secretary, Government of Punjab, Housing & Physical Planning Department, Lahore and another Vs. District Judge, Lahore and three others. (P.L.J. 1985 Lhr.12). The ratio of these cases is that the valuation of the suit in arbitration matters is the value of the subject matter of the reference and that the same value determines the forum of appeal. Though the land in question was fully described in the arbitration agreement by which the dispute was referred to the arbitrator, Ghulam Shabhir, yet unfortunately the value of the land, subject matter of the reference, was not mentioned. As observed above it was stated in the memorandum of appeal that the value of the land in question was Rs. 50/60 thousand per acre. This fact has not been disputed before me, I, therefore, hold that the learned District Judge was right in holding that the value of the subject matter of the reference was Rs. 6,37,000/-.
7. On the merits, the order of the learned Civil Judge appears to be wholly insupportable in law. It has been seen that it was Allah Yar as the attorney of Shahalam who had singed the arbitration agreement, referring the alleged dispute to The arbitrator, Ghulam Shabhir. He it was who had represented Shahalam before the arbitrator. Allah Yar claimed to have derived his authority to so act from the power of attorney dated 13.9.1989. As has been seen the case of Shahalam had consistently been that he had not executed the power of attorney and had not constituted Allah Yar as his attorney. It has been stated that the disputed power of attorney was formally revoked by the appellant by a registered deed dated 4.2.1990. A photo copy of that deed has been placed on the file of this court. However that may be, the opinion of the expert was not formally proved and the learned Civil Judge was, therefore, wrong in proceeding to act upon that opinion without affording an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence. As the authority of Allah Yar to act on behalf of the appellant was seriously disputed and the appellant had himself entered appearance and contested Mst. Matloob Bibi's application for making the award rule of the court, the learned Civil Judge was also wrong in recording the statement of Allah Yar and in making the award rule of the court on the basis of that statement. It must therefore, be held that the appellant was condemned un-heard.
8. For these reasons, the appeal is accepted with costs, the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 16.4.1990 making the award rule of the court is set aside and the matter is sent back for its decision in accordance with law.
9. The file of the case will be placed before the learned District Judge, Sargodha; he shall entrust the matter for decision to a Civil Judge other than the Civil Judge who made the order dated 16.4.1990.