' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--- A suit for recovery of Rs,1,38,869 was filed by Muhammad Umar Khan, deceased, now represented by the respondents, in the year 1958. On contest by the appellant/defendant and due trial the said suit was decreed on 29-6-1998 for a sum of Rs,11,15,941.44. The decree-sheet originally stated the amount of Rs,1,38,869.13, however, later on, this amount was substituted by the aforesaid amount. This appeal has been filed before this Court against the same. There were some proceedings on certain miscellaneous applications regarding deposit of decretal amount etc. Reference to which need not be made in the present context. An application (Civil Miscellaneous No,3-C of 1999) on behalf of the respondents under section 151 read with section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 was moved with a view to dismiss/return the memorandum of appeal to the appellant in view of the value of the subject-matter of the suit.
Notice in these applications was ordered to be issued to the appellant. Another application (Civil Miscellaneous No,4-C of 1999) was also made by the respondents/decree-holders for vacation of the stay order, in which also a notice was issued to the appellant. The later application was listed for hearing on 20-9-1999, when none appeared for the appellant, as such, was adjourned to 21-9- 1999, when again appellant is not represented.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants/respondents that as the value of the original suit was Rs,1,38,869.13, therefore, the appellate forum for appeal was the Court of District Judge whose pecuniary limits had been enhanced up to rupees two hundred thousand vide Act V of 1986. It is, thus, contended that appeal before this Court is not competent as no vested right of the appellant has in any way been impaired. Reference has been made to section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, and Muhammad Ayub and 4 others v. Dr. Obaidullah and 6 others 1999 SCMR 394 in support of the same.
3. Section 18 of the Ordinance, as originally enacted envisaged that an appeal from the decree or order of a Civil Judge shall lie to the High Court if the value of the original suit in which the decree or order was made exceeded fifty thousand rupees and to the District Judge in any other case.
Clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 18 was, however, amended by Act V of 1986 and the words fifty thousand rupees have been substituted with two hundred thousand. As such, all cases in which the value of the original suit exceeds two hundred thousand rupees, an appeal before the High Court is competent and in the rest of the cases before the District Judge. The appellant, however, seems to have filed the present appeal before this Court keeping in view the decretal amount of Rs,11,15,941.44 although the value of the original suit was Rs,1,38,869.13.
4. It is by now a trite law that for determination of the appellate forum the valuation of the suit as stated in the plaint is relevant and not the decretal amount. The proposition does not admit of any doubt in view of number of precedents of the superior Courts available on the subject which need not be enumerated here. However, reference may be made to few of the judgments. In Sadar Din v.
Elahi Bakhsh and another PLD 1976 Lah. 1 Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, J. The then Chief Justice, upheld the objection of the respondents that as the value of the suit was Rs,16,858.60 appeal was not competent before the High Court irrespective of the fact that the decree in the suit was passed for Rs,98,700 and while considering section 18(1)(a) of the Ordinance took the view that:-- "The forum of appeal is to be decided according to the value of the suit. It means that irrespective of what may be the am. Ount for which decree is passed, the appeal will lie in the Court according to the value of the suit."
' Similar view was taken by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Muhammad Nawaz v. Sher Muhammad PLD 1987 SC 284 wherein an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court i,e, Ilahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Bilqees Begum PLD 1985 SC 393 was considered and the following observations made in that case were adopted by their lordships with approval:-- "It is important to observe that the expression employed in section 18(1)(a) is ' value of the original suit'. The term 'value' according to clause (h) of section 2 of the Ordinance is explained, thus, ' value' used with reference to a suit means the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit. This show that the forum of appeal is to be decided according to the value of the subject-matter fixed in the original suit. It means that irrespective of the amount for which the decree is ultimately passed the appeal will lie to the High Court or the District Judge according to the value of the original suit." (Underlined by me for emphasis).
' The same principle has been reiterated by their lordships in the case of Muhammad Ayub (supra).
Therefore, there is no obscurity as to the forum of appeal that is to be determined with reference to the valuation of the suit and not the decretal amount awarded by the Court.
5. That change of forum for appeal does not in any way impair any vested right of a party is also now a fairly settled, proposition by judicial precedents. In Adnan Afzal v. Sher Afzal PLD 1969 SC 167 referring to the Statutory Construction by Crawford it was observed that:-- "A statute purporting to transfer jurisdiction over certain causes of action may operate retroactively. This is what is meant by saying that a change of forum by a law is retrospective being a matter of procedure only."
' In Daraz Ali and others v. Nathu Khan 1982 CLC 2399 amendment made in section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 as to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge to entertain and decide the appeal was considered and it was held that:-- "As a matter of fact the Ordinance did not modify the forum, nor did it take away from any of the parties the right of appeal. The law simply conferred on the District Judge pecuniary jurisdiction more than he already had, and the High Court while transferring its case to the Court of the District Judge did not change the forum under the amending Ordinance, but had simply transferred it in the exercise of its powers conferred by the Civil Procedure Code."
' The effect of change of forum of appeal by amending Act V of 1986 came up before the Supreme Court as well in Bashir v. Wazir Ali 1987 SCMR 978.
' This case had arisen after amendment in section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 through Act V of 1986 which had enhanced the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge from fifty thousand rupees to two hundred thousand. In view of that amendment the Honourable Chief Justice of this Court in exercise of executive powers directed the office that all regular first appeals up to the value of Rs,2 lacs be sent for the disposal to the respective District Judges. Before District Judge, Faisalabad an objection was raised by the appellant that the amendment was prospective in nature and the appeal already having been filed before coming into force of the Amending Act V of 1986 before the High Court the District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the same. This objection was overruled by the learned District Judge which order was upheld by this Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court dealt with the proposition as follows:-- "The relevant provision of the amending Act V of 1986 had merely changed the forum in which the appeal was to be heard and did not affect any vested right of appeal and that, as held by this Court in Adnan Afzal v. Sher Afzal PLD 1969 SC 187 such amendments are merely procedural in nature and are, therefore, operative retrospectively."
In view of the above legal position obtaining in the matter, we are of the view that this appeal is not competent before this Court as the value of the original suit i,e, Rs,1,38,869.13 does not exceed rupees two hundred thousand. Accordingly, the appeal is returned for presentation before the proper forum.