1. ' The aforesaid two civil revisions were filed by applicant Ifitkharuddin against the judgments and decrees, dated 11-5-1992 and 23-5-1992 of the Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi South in C.A.
2. No, 225 of 1989 and 226 of 198 whereby the judgment and decree of the 1st Senior Civil Judge, decreeing Suit No, 1196 of 1995 filed by respondent No,2 Mst. Chemmi while dismissing Suit No, 4783 of 1985 filed by the applicant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree the applicant filed two separate appeals to challenge the findings in aforesaid two suits.
3. ' The Appellate Court by its aforesaid judgments and decree/dismissed both the appeals of the applicant on the ground that the subject-matter of the appeals was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court, in views of the objection was raised by the respondent before the Appellate Court that first appeal of the value of more than of Rs,50,000 was required to be filed in this Court in as much as at the relevant time the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Appellate Court to entertain the appeals against the judgments and decree of Civil Judge/Senior Civil Judge was limited to Rs,50,000. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and decrees of the First Appellate Court, the applicant has filed the aforesaid two appeals pertaining the two foretasted judgments.
4. ' I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the case law relied upon by Mr. Muhammad Ikram Siddiqi.
5. ' Mr. Ikram Siddiqi, learned counsel for the applicant did not dispute the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Appellate Court at the relevant time and admitted that the same was to the extent of Rs, 50,000. He further submitted that as the subject-matter of the suit was of the value of Rs, 60,000 the appeal sought to have been filed in this Court and not in the Court of District Judge. He further submitted that the grievance of the applicant was that the appellate Court did not follow the proper course which he was required to adopt in the situation of this case, which according to Mr. Ikram Siddiqi same to return the memos. Of the appeals, when objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction was raised by the respondents, for filing them in proper Court having jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. In support of his above contention that the Appellate Court in this circumstances of the case ought to have returned the memos. Of the appeals to the appellant/applicant for presentation before the Court having jurisdiction to entertain the said appeals, Mr. Ikram Siddiqi, placed reliance on the cases of (1) Mst. Hawabai and 6 others v. Abdus Shakoor and 8 others, reported in PLD 1981 Kar. 277, (2) Twaha v. The Master M.V. 'Asian Queen' and 2 others reported in PLD 1982 Kar. 749, (3) Mst. Sharaf Khatoon v. Abdul Majeed, reported in PLD 1985 Quetta 54 and (4)
6. Salman Ashraf v. Begum Asmatunnissa, reported in 1991 MLD 1510.
7. ' I have gone through all the afforested authorities and the pronouncements made therein are that once a Court finds that it has no jurisdiction to proceed with a matter then the proper procedure for it would be to. Return the plaint/memo. Of appeals, as the case may be to the concerned a party for presentation in proper Court having jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the said suit/appeal and not to dismiss the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In view of the pronouncements made in the afforested cases, the course followed failed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi South in dismissing both the appeals filed by the applicant on the ground that the subject matter thereof exceeded his pecuniary jurisdiction relating to entertainment and disposal of first appeal was not proper and valid and instead of dismissing the appeals, he should have returned the memo. Of appeals to the applicant for presentation in appropriate Court having jurisdiction to proceed with those appeals.
8. ' Upon the above discussion I am satisfied that the impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate Court and not be sustained. Accordingly., the aforesaid two civil revisions are allowed, the, judgments and decrees of the First Appellate Court are set aside and it is ordered that the memos. Of appeals presented by the applicants in the Court of 7th Additional District Judge, be returned to the applicant for enabling him to present the same in the Court having jurisdiction to entertain the said appeals in accordance with the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court at the relevant time.