ORDER ALI MUHAMMAD BALUCH, J.- By this application, the learned .Counsel for the applicants- wants that value of the subject matter may be assessed by City Surveyor in order to find out the pecuniary jurisdiction of , the trial Court. This application should be moved before the trial Court and the trial Court may decide the same on merits. This application is disposed of as such.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia. Is that the valuation shown in the plaint makes the value of the suit at .More than Rs. 30 lacs and therefore, on this ground the plaint should have been rv ,ed on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The next contention .He learned counsel for the applicant is that the suit itself is time-barred nd such contention in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected arbitrarily. '
Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 at the very outset pointed out that this Revision should have been filed before the District Judge. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon Civil Laws (Reforms) Act, 1994, whereby under Section 10, amendment was brought in Section 115 (Act V of 1908) of CPC and by adding sub Section (2) it was enacted that the District Court had also the powers which are conferred on the High Court under Section 115(1). The learned counsel has further relied on the case reported in 1992 CLC 1904 (Karachi), wherein Justice Syed Abdul Rehman, as he then was, had held that under the principles embodied in Section 15 of CPC suit should be instituted in the Court of lowest grade, competent to try the same. It was also held in this case that where the High Court and the District Court had concurrent jurisdiction for entertaining Revision Application, in view of the principles embodied insertion 15 CPC the same should be filed before the District Court. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 is that this- Revision Application is not competent before this Court as decided in 1992 CLC 1904. April from that, the impugned order shows that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has not been rejected. The Senior Civil Judge had found that questions raised in the application u/O. 7 Rule 11 CPC required adjudication by way of evidence and therefore, it was ordered that issues had to be framed in that regard. This Revision Application under Section 115 against the impugned order has been filed challenging the same on the ground that the impugned order be set aside as the observation of the trial Court for framing of the issues was not warranted by law, and it amounted to rejection of the application. I do not agree with this contention as the application u/O. 7 Rule 11 CPC has not been rejected. Merely holding that the questions raised in that application required decision after framing of issue, and Recording of evidence, did not amount to its rejection ipso facto.
In order to see the jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court under Section 115, the provisions of Section 115 CPC as amended, are being reproduced hereunder: "115. Revision. (1) The High Court may............ (a)----(b) ... (c) ... (2) The District Court may exercise the powers-conferred on the High Court by sub Section (1) in respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate to such District Court in which no appeal lies and the amount or value of the subject- matter whereof does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court".
Therefore, it is clear that District Court could hear a revision under Section 115, CPC. If moved before it.'
Apart from it in order to see whether the provision of Section 115 CPC are attracted in this matter, it is to be seen whether the lower Court had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in it. The third point to be seen is whether the jurisdiction vested in the trial Court was exercised illegally or with material irregularity . 1 do not find the impugned order suffering from any such defect. Neither it is illegal nor irregular on part of the lower Court to order framing of an issue and recording of evidence in order to decide an application u/O.
7 Rule 11 CPC. To me, this appears to be a fair exercise of jurisdiction by the Court, and there is nothing wrong with the order. The point of limitation also prima facie was not attracted in this case to reject the plaint.
Taking all the above considerations, I do not find any force in this Revision Application for admitting it to regular hearing. Therefore, the same is dismissed m limine.
3. This application is also dismissed in view of the dismissal of the main Revision Application,