' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24-11-1992.
2. The facts to be noted are that respondent No,1, Sher Rasool, is alleged to have sold the land measuring 172 Canals 17 Marla's, by an oral agreement, in favor of the appellant. A Mutation No,1141 dated 4-4-1989 was entered in favor of the appellant, but the same was not sanctioned for the reasons that the land in question had already been mortgaged with the Agricultural Bank. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement. Sher Rasool respondent, through his attorney, conceded the suit of the plaintiff and made a statement to that effect before the Trial Court. Subsequently, he challenged the statement of the attorney by saying that he was never appointed as attorney by him. Respondents Nos.2 to 15 in their written statements stated that the land measuring 34 Canals had been sold by Sher Rasool in their favor. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff by the Trial Court on 24-3-1991, against the price of Rs,5,00,000. Respondents Nos.2 to 15 challenged the decree of the Trial Court to the extent of the land measuring 34 Canals in appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was returned to the aforesaid respondents on the ground that the value for the purpose of jurisdiction exceeded the pecuniary limit. They filed an appeal before the High Court, which was allowed; the decree of the Trial Court relating to the land measuring 34 Canals was set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh decision qua the said land between the appellant and the respondents after framing issues and providing opportunity to the parties to produce evidence.
3. It is an admitted feature of the case that the matter had not been adjudicated on merits by the Trial. Court. The learned District Judge returned the Memo. Of Appeal to the respondents for the reasons stated in his order.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, as the respondents chose the wrong forum, therefore, valuable right of limitation had accrued to the appellant, and that appeal before the High Court was time-barred, therefore, the case should not have been remanded. This contention has no force. The High Court for the sound reasons accepted the appeal of the respondents and remanded the case for Trial on merits. The High Court rightly rejected the contention of the appellant that the respondents were required to affix the court-fee on the Memo.
Of Appeal on the total consideration of Rs,5,00,000. The respondents challenged the decree of the Trial Court to the extent of land measuring 34 Canals, therefore, they had to pay the court-fee on the price of 34 Canals only. The objection about the competency of appeal before the High Court was also rightly rejected by the learned Judges. The impugned judgment is based on sound principle of law and does not require any interference by this Court.
' This appeal has no force. The same is dismissed with cost.