KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, C.J.-- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed on Aug. 29, 1998 by District Judge Rawalakot whereby the suit for possession filed by the late father of the present appellants, was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal briefly stated are that the suit land measuring 5 kanals, 3 marlas alongwith a house was purchased by answering respondent 2 for defendant- respondent No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 4,60,0Q0/- vide sale-deed dated March 6, 1997. The late plaintiff A.I Sher Khan brought a suit in the Court of Sub-Judge Rawalakot on July 17, 1993 by claiming his right of prior purchase over the-suit land. In this suit, written statement was filed by .The defendant: respondents in which they pleaded the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation. They also challenged the jurisdiction of the Court. The deceased-plaintiff filed an application for the amendment of the plaint whrch was allowed to him. Consequently he filed his amended plaint on Jan. 16, 1995 before Sub-Judge, Rawalakote. The respondents, thereafter, were asked to file their amended written statement which was filed by them on May 24, 1995, in which they again repeated the objections of limitation and questioned the jurisdiction of the Court of Sub-Judge. The Trial Court in the light of the pleading of the parties settled issues, on. July 22, 1995.
Without deciding preliminary issues the learned Sub-Judge decided to proceed with the suit and directed the decreased-plaintiff to begin with his evidence. This order was assailed in a revision petition before High Court on the ground that the learned Sub-Judge had no jurisdiction to hea and dispose of the suit as he can exercise his jurisdiction up to Rs. 25,000/-. Whereas the plaintiff has valued his suit at Rs. 60,120/-. The learned Judge in the High Court allowed this revision petition by holding that the Court of Sub-Judge has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter involved in the suit. He directed the Court to return the plaint to the deceased-plaintiff in terms-of Order 7, rule 10 of CPC. The learned Additional Sub-judge Rawalakot, in the light of directions of the High Court, vide his order dated July 16, 1996, returned the plaint to the plaintiff for its presentation before the proper Court. The suit 'was than filed in the Court of District Judge Rawalakot on July 25, 1996. The learned District' Judge dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. This order was assailed in appeal by, the deceased-plaintiff before this Court. He died during the pendency 'of his appeal before this Court and his legal descendants were allowed to be impleaded as appellants vide order of this Court dated 29.4.2000.
3. Sardar Muhammad Suleman Khan, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the deceased father of the appellants had engaged a senior Advocate who tendered wrong advise to him and filed his suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Rawalakot instead of filing the same in the Court of District Judge Rawalakot. According to him, his clients are entitled to avail the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act in order to bring their case within pie limitation. He argued that this wrong advise was tendered to their father by a senior Advocate to whom licence was granted by this Court. His clients 'therefore, should not be penalized. He in support of his contention has relied on a DB case reported as Sardar Muhammad isma eel Khan Vr-s. Sardar Bagga Khan (PLD *1975 AJK 131). In this authority it is laid down that a litigant cannot be penalised ii wrong advise is given to him by a legal practitioner duly licensed by the High Court as the litigant public are ignorant of the law and procedure. This view was, later on, over-ruled by the Division Bench of this Court in a case titled Masud Ahmad and 2 others v United Bank Ltd. (-PLJ 1991 Azad J&K 16) and was upheld by the Supreme Court.
4. 'On the other hand,' it was contended by Sardar Tahir Anwar, Advocate that a mistaken advise is never been acknowledged in law a valid ground for condonation of delay. He relied upon the following cases:
(1) P.L.D. 1967 Azad J&K 47.
(2) P.L.D. 1971 Azad J&K 30.
(3) 1992 SCM R 424.
1992 SCMR 424). The delay was not condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act on the ground that the provision of law was clear, therefore, there was no reason for filing appeal in the wrong Court.
5. We have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. In the present case, the suit was filed in the Court of Sub-Judge, Rawalakote on 17.7.1993. The vendees-respondents in their written statement have clearly questioned the jurisdictional competence of the Court. On request' when amended plaint was allowed to be filed by the Court to the deceased-plaintiff. He filed the same on 16.1.1995. In the amended written statement filed by the vendees-respondents on 24.4.1995, objection of the jurisdictional competence of the Court was once again repeated alongwith the objection. Of limitation. No step was taken by the deceased- plaintiff for taking the plaint back for its presentation before the proper Court. Ultimately the plaint was taken back by the deceased-plaintiff from the Sub-Judge, Rawalakote on 16.7.1996 much after the expiry of limitation period. They still kept it with them upto 25.7.1996, the date when they finally presented the same before the District Judge, Rawalakote. The time spent by the plaintiffs- appellants, in our view, cannot be said to be the time spent bona fide in the wrong forum.
7. Section 14 of the Limitation Act is attracted only if it is shown that the wrong forum was chosen in good faith and not due to inadvertence. There is no dispute that the jurisdictional competence of the Sub-Judge is upto Rs. 25,000/-. Beyond this amount the suits can be filed in the Court of District Judge. Besides landed property, the house constructed therein was also sold to the vendee- respondent. The deceased-plaintiff himself fixed the value of the house for the jurisdictional purpose and also for the purpose of Court-fee, at Rs. 60,000/-. In the light of these facts, it was easily ascertainable that in which Court the suit should have been filed.
8. In our view, the suit was filed by the deceased-plaintiff before a wrorng Court due to absence of the due care and attention, therefore, the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, cannot be given to the present appellants who are his legal descendants in this case.