' This petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeks revision of order dated 4-4- 1994 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby he returned the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner against the interim order of the trial Court dated 27-6-1992 for presenting it to the proper Court on the ground that the valuation of the subject-matter was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction.
2. The necessary facts are that an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 against the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and 5 praying that they be directed to file arbitration agreement in Court and the dispute between the parties as enumerated in the application be referred to arbitration. It is important to note that in the said application valuation for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was fixed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 at Rs,200. In the course of those proceedings, an application under Order 40, rule 1, C.P.C. For appointment of Receiver was moved by respondents Nos.1 and 2 which was allowed by the trial Court. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal, the memorandum of which was returned to the petitioner for presenting it to this Court as the Additional District Judge was of the view that as the valuation of the property in dispute between the parties, was more than the pecuniary limits of his jurisdiction, the appeal should have been filed in this Court.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents Nos.1 and 2 had themselves in the application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 fixed the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs,200 and as such they were estopped from raising any dispute in that respect. The learned counsel has further contended that as long as the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction remained to be Rs,200 the appeal against the interim order would lie to the District Court and not before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand has supported the reasons which prevailed with the Additional District Judge in holding that he lacked pecuniary jurisdiction.
Reliance was placed upon the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Province of Punjab through Secretary, Government of Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Lahore and another v. District Judge, Lahore and 3 others PLD 1984 Lah. 515 to argue that in law the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction in matters arising under the Arbitration Act, 1940 was the valuation of the subject-matter of dispute which in the present case was Rs,11,00,000 and therefore, appeal was wrongly presented before the District Court.
5. There is considerable merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Although it is true that this Court in the case of Province of Punjab and another v. District Judge and 3 others PLD 1984 Lah. 515 has laid down that in matters arising under the Arbitration Act, 1940, according to the Rules framed by the Lahore High Court, the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction has to be the value of the subject-matter but this proposition does not advance the case of the respondents for two reasons; firstly, that they themselves fixed the jurisdictional value at Rs,200 and secondly, and more importantly in law even if wrong valuation is fixed for the purpose of jurisdiction but so long it is not corrected by the Court concerned. Forum of appeal would be determined by the stated value which in the present case was Rs,200. If any authority is needed, reference may be made to MA. Jalil v. Group Capt. (Retd.) Salah-ud-Din Khan (1983 CLC 1685) and Babu Jan Muhammad and others v. Dr. Abdul Ghafoor and others (PLD 1966 SC 461). It is also to be seen that the valuation fixed in the application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was not objected to by the petitioner in A reply to that application. That being so, it was not open to the Additional District Judge to enter into the controversy that as to what should be the real value of the subject- matter in an appeal arising out of an interim order ' In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed, the impugned order of the Additional District Judge is set aside with the result that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial Court dated 26-7-1992 shall be deemed to be pending before the District Court and shall be decided afresh in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.