' This is a revision against the order, dated 30-9-1999 of the learned Additional District Judge, Dir, whereby the refusal to grant temporary injunction by the learned trial Court on 8-5-1999, was upheld.
2. Hamidullah petitioner/plaintiff brought a suit against numerous defendants including the Government for a declaration to the effect that under agreement, dated 4-12-1991, he was entitled to exploit the forest and to receive the royalty thereof. The plaint also included a prayer for permanent injunction and for the grant of the amount of royalty which has been received by respondents Nos. 10 to 12 that amounted to Rs,29,22,800 in addition to the prayer for rendition of accounts.
3. It is an admitted fact that the original plaint was valued for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee at Rs,19,22,800 with particular reference to prayer 'Jeem'. Under section 18 of the Civil Court Ordinance, 1962, an Appellate Court assumes jurisdiction on the basis of valuation fixed in the plaint and not on the basis of a decree granted or refused. Again under section 106, C.P.C., the forum of appeal against interlocutory orders is the same which has the jurisdiction to entertain the appeals against decrees.
4. The question would, therefore, be as to what would be the appellate forum in the instant case.
Under the above law and in view of the valuation fixed, the interlocutory order required to be challenged before the High Court 'and not before the District Judge. The appeal before the District Judge was, therefore, filed without jurisdiction and the order of the District Judge, dated 30-9-1999 was also without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
5. There being no appeal filed before the High Court and the limitation thereabout also having elapsed, the original order, dated 8-5-1999 passed by the trial Court has become final. It cannot now be challenged in appeal before the High Court. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed as non-maintainable in limine alongwith Civil Miscellaneous Nos.1 and 2 of 2000.