1. KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, C. J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed on August 29, 1998 by District Judge, Rawalakot whereby the suit for possession filed by the late father of the present appellants was dismissed. 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, 4,60,000; vide sale-deed, dated March 6, 1997. The late plaintiff Ali 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 defendants- 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 which was allowed to him. Consequently he filed his amended plaint on January 16, 1995 before Sub-Judge, Rawalakot. 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 deceased-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 hear 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 C.P.C.
2. 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 then 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. 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 advice 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 the limitation. He argued that this wrong advice 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 D.B. Case reported as Sardar Muhammad Isma eel Khan v. Sardar Bagga Khan PLD 1975 Azad J&K 131. In this authority it is laid down that a litigant cannot be penalised if wrong advice 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, overruled by the Division Bench of this Court in a case titled Masud Ahmad and 2 others v. United Bank Ltd. 1991 M LD 1030 and was upheld by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, it was contended by SardarTahir Anwar, Advocate that a mistaken advice has never been acknowledged in law a valid ground for condonation of delay. He relied upon the following cases:
(1) PLD 1967 Azad J&K 47,
(2) PLD 1971 Azad J&K 30, and
(3) 1992 SCM R 424. In case titled Rahmat Ullah Chughtai v. Azad Kashmir Government PLD 1967 Azad J&K 47 the condonation of delay was requested under section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the prayer was refused on the ground that the relevant Article of the Limitation Act was easily. Ascertainable, therefore, there was no ground for the condonation of delay. This authority is distinguishable because in the present case, the condonation is prayed under section 14 of the Limitation Act and not under section 5 of the Limitation Act. In case titled Ahmed Jee v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, PLD 1971 Azad J&K 30, the condonation of delay was requested under section 14 of the Limitation Act on the ground that appeal was filed well in time before the Court having no jurisdiction. However, the delay was not excused on the ground that the memorandum of appeal was not taken back immediately. Rather it was taken back after expiry of the limitation period. The appellants, therefore, in this case was not allowed to plead bona fide litigation under this provision of law. In case titled Masud Ahmad and 2 others v. United Bank Limited 1992 SCM R 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. We have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. In the present case, the suit was filed in the Court of Sub-Judge, Rawalakot 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, Rawalakot on 16-7-1996 much after the expiry of limitation period. 'They still kept it with them up to 25-7-1996 the date when they finally presented the same before the District Judge, Rawalakot. The time spent by the plaintiffs-appellants, in our view, cannot be said to be the time spent bona fide in the wrong forum.
3. 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 up to Rs, 25,000. Beyond this amount the suit 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. In our view, the suit was filed by the deceased-plaintiff before a wrong Court due to absence of 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. In the light of above this appeal has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Order announced.