' This civil revision arises out of an order, dated 31-10-2000 whereby the Additional District Judge, Gujrat passed an order for return of the memo. Of appeal for presenting the same before the competent forum.
2. Brief facts in this case are that the petitioner filed a suit on 19-7-1995 seeking the cancellation of sale-deed No,181/1 dated 21-2-1995 as well Mutation No,2129, dated 13-3-1995 and as a consequential relief for decree for the permanent injunction. The suit was contested by the respondent and in the written statement inter alia one of the objections raised was that the suit is not maintainable. It was stated on behalf of the defendant that plaintiff herself appeared before the Sub-Registrar, executed the sale-deed for consideration of Rs,6 lacs. The possession was also delivered. Later respondents Nos.l and 2 sold out the same property for 6,50,000 to respondent No,3. The plaintiff/petitioner has also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court while disposing of the application of the interim injunction has rejected the application for grant of stay with the observation that the suit for declaration on the basis of non-payment of whole sale price against the sale-deed No,181/1 dated 21-2-1995 executed by her before the Sub- Registrar is not maintainable and at the maximum she can claim a recovery for the balance of sale price. Accordingly the plaint was rejected by the trial Court vide its order, dated 12-12-1997.
3. The petitioner assailed the judgment of the trial Court by filing an appeal and the first appellate Court vide its order, dated 31-10-2000 passed an order for return of the memo. Of appeal for presentation of the same before a competent forum. It appears that the appellate Court in passing the impugned order was influenced by the fact that the subject-matter of the suit is Rs,6 lacs.
4. Pre-admission notice was issued to the respondent. Arguments heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the first appellate Court was not legally justified to pass impugned order because the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and the court-fees was only Rs,200 as stated by the plaintiff in para.8 of the plaint. Refuting the arguments the learned counsel for the respondent stated that in pith and substance the suit was for the cancellation of a sale-deed having a value of Rs,6 lacs. Therefore, the valuation for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction could not in any manner be less than 6 lacs. And the appellate Court rightly considered the value of the suit at Rs,6 lacs and passed an order for the return of the memo. Of appeal for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction.
5. The Additional District Judge passed the impugned order while taking value of suit as Rs,6 lacs.
This value was taken by reading the plaint cumulatively. The question which arises in the case is whether the appellate Court could take the value on the basis of its own evaluation, from the contents of the plaint or the valuation given in the plaint for the purpose of jurisdiction and court- fees were required to be taken. It is a settled principle that the value given in the plaint for the purpose of jurisdiction and court-fees determines the forum of appeal in the absence of any determination of value of the suit by the trial Court. The petitioner had given the value of suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and the court-fees at Rs,200. Plaintiffs might have given this value arbitrarily disregarding the actual value which the law prescribed. The valuation mentioned and given in the plaint by the plaintiff could be reviewed by the trial Court under the provision of Order 7, Rule 11 and the petitioner was required to be called upon to pay the requisite court-fees. It was not done by the trial Court. The suit was at the preliminary stage and trial Court without determining any question legal or otherwise, merely rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Therefore, there was no determination or a review of the value given by the plaintiff. In the absence of any such determination or review, the value as given in the plaint by the plaintiff howsoever arbitrarily, was to be taken as the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction as well as for the court-fees.
Consequently for ascertaining the forum of appeal the value given in the plaint by the plaintiff had to be taken as guiding premises. For reference cases of Ali Muhammad alias Ali Ahmad and others v. Mahbub Ahmad etc. 1987 SCMR 1263, Elahi Bakhsh v. Bilqees Begum PLD 1985 SC 393, Messrs State Life Insurance Corporation etc. v. Fazal Muhammad etc. 1982 CLC 1162, Muhammad Zafar v.
Yousaf Ahsan PLD 1987 Lah. 512, Micro Electronics International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Sohail Ahmad and 5 others 1995 CLC 1874, Messrs Suleman & Co. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan etc. 1990 CLC 2183 and Sardar Din v. Elahi Bakhsh etc. PLD 1976 Lah. 1 are relied.
4. The accumulative effect of provision of section 8 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887 read with section 7 clause (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Is that the value of the suit in a suit for declaration has to be determined on the basis of relief claimed for but if the value placed by the plaintiff in the plaint is arbitrary, it is rectifiable by exercising the power of review by the trial Court under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. But in the absence of any such review or determination, the value of the suit given by the plaintiff in the plaint would be taken as the basis for conferring pecuniary jurisdiction on trial Court as well as on the appellate Court. It would not be a correct proposition of law canvassed by the respondent that initially the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and the court-fees has to be taken on the basis of relief claimed for and any arbitrary and erroneous values mentioned by the plaintiff was to be ignored. The law prescribed the valuation of the suit for court-fees and jurisdiction but if the value given by the plaintiff is not in consonance with the value prescribed yet the plaint could be rejected without providing an opportunity to the plaintiff for correcting the valuation. Admittedly the petitioner in his plaint in para.10 has given the value of the suit for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction as Rs,200 it was not directed to be corrected by the trial Court. Therefore, it would be taken as the basis for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court as well as of the forum of appeal till its determination by the Court.
Therefore, the Additional District Judge was not correct in taking the value of the suit at Rs,6 lacs and directing the return of the memo. Of appeal.
' In view of the finding recorded above, the civil revision is accepted. The impugned order, dated 31- 10-2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gujrat is set aside. He is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merit according to law.