AMIR.ALAM KHAN, J.---This case has a chequered history of its own for it has shuttled from Court to Court since 1985 while the petitioners, who are aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 27- 2-1980 passed by the learned trial Court are still in Square No, 1 .
2. The gimmick started with the decretal of the suit filed by the respondents herein who had claimed that they are owners in possession of land in dispute and that decree dated 2-3-1972 passed by the Civil Court was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, therefore, the same is inoperative against their rights. The valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was fixed at Rs,200. The value as fixed by the respondents was objected to by the petitioners, resultantly, Issue No,3 was framed. Needless to add here that even the plaintiffs- respondents in their para. Of valuation had submitted that they would make up the deficiency, if directed by the Court. The issue as to valuation, however, was determined in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents with the result that the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, who had the jurisdiction to decide the same. The said appeal was, however, returned to the petitioner on an objection being taken that in para.5 of the said appeal, the appellant had asserted that the value of the property in dispute was Rs,1,50,000. The petitioners received the memorandum of appeal without any demur and presented the same before this Court, as the pecuniary jurisdiction in those days obliged the petitioners to file the appeal before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court proceeded to dismiss the same in limine on the ground that the same is not competent before this Court. The judgment reached in that behalf may be reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-- "A preliminary objection was taken that the appeal had been rightly filed before the District Court as the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction remained the same Rs,200 despite contest and that it shall determine the forum of appeal which in this case was the learned District Judge.
There is considerable force in the point. The appeal would have been filed here in the High Court only if its valuation for jurisdiction exceeded Rs,50,000. Obviously, the sale price i,e, Rs,1,50,000 shown in the pleadings had no relationship whatsoever to the valuation for jurisdiction. Returning the memo of appeal on the part of the learned Additional District Judge was not correct and the remedy evidently for such a wrong order was a revision. The appellants did not avail it and instead re-filed the appeal here much too against the provisions as to jurisdictional value. It did not lie here, pr could it be returned now for re-filing before the learned District Judge as that forum seems to have been lost to the appellants for their having wrongly accepted the return of the memo. Thus, it is neither here nor there and is dismissed in limine." It was thereafter that the petitioners filed the present civil revision challenging the order dated 3- 9-1984 whereby the memorandum of appeal was returned to them to file it before this Court.
3. This civil revision was placed before my learned brother Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi, J. (as he then was), who having appreciated that the matter has already been heard by a Division Bench of this Court and although the same has been dismissed in limine on the ground that the appeal, itself, was not competent before this Court, yet directed the office to place the revision before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, so that a larger Bench should examine and determine the question for in his considered opinion the question of interpretation of the judgment passed by a Division Bench was also to be considered. In pursuance of the order dated 25-3-1999 passed by my learned brother Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi, J. (as he 'then was), the matter has been placed before us.
4. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents in that he objected that the matter having been dealt by this Court and that too by a Division Bench, whereby the R.F.A. Filed against the judgment and decree was dismissed, therefore, the remedy, if any, of the petitioners lay before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and not by filing a civil revision against the order of return. Learned counsel on the other hand maintained that no party should suffer because of mistakes committed by the Court. He has also relied on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court whereby the appeal was dismissed in limine. In particular he relied on the following observations:--- "Returning the memo of appeal on the part of learned Additional District Judge was not correct and the remedy evidently for such a wrong order was a revision." It was maintained that the jurisdiction to revise an order apart from being invoked on the motion of a party can also be exercised suo motu and since an illegality has been pointed out, therefore, manifestly this Court is not denuded of its power to correct the same.
5. It is well settled that the forum of appeal is determined according to the valuation of the suit as fixed by the plaintiffs. If any authority is needed, reference may be made to the case of Sadar Din v.
Elahi Bakhsh and another PLD 1976 Lahore 1. It is also an admitted position of fact on the record that the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was fixed at Rs,200 and although the same was objected to by the petitioners yet, the learned trial Court proceeded to accept the evaluation as fixed by the plaintiffs-respondents and did not change it. In the circumstances, the appeal was competently filed before the District Judge and the same could not have been returned. The learned District Judge, however, erroneously proceeded to return the same to the petitioners presumably on the ground that the respondents or the plaintiffs has mentioned the same somewhere in their pleadings to be Rs,1,50,000. This being not the case, obviously the return of the memo of appeal was illegal. It is no doubt correct that the petitioners complied with the order without any demur and having accepted the return filed it before this Court with the result that it was placed before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench in turn opined that the revision was the only remedy and that the petitioners should have adhered to the same. The revision filed before this Court is obviously barred by limitation but then, the revisional power can also be exercised suo moto. There is plethora of law available on the subject, which may be referred to with advantage i,e, Water and Power Development Authority and another v. Messrs Pakistan Associated Construction 1992 CLC 771; Muhammad Din v. Muhammad Amin PLD 1995 Lahore 15; Muhammad Aslam and another v. Munshi Muhammad Behram and another 1991 SCMR 1971; Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others v. Khan Bahadur through Legal Heirs 1992 SCMR 2334 and Manager, Jammu and Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678. It is because of intervening decision of this Court that my learned brother Sayed Najam-ul- Hassan Kazmi, J. (as he then was) opined that the revision should be heard by a larger Bench.
Since a patent illegality has been brought to our notice, we would not refrain from exercising our revisional jurisdiction for if we refuse to exercise our jurisdiction, it would amount to refusing relief to litigant at the portal of justice who have remained victim of the technicalities of procedure or the mistakes of the Court. Needless to add that it is well-settled that acts or omissions of Court do not injure a litigant. Reference my be made to Namdar Khan v. Muhammad Akram Khan and 14 others 1993 SCMR 434.
6. It is well-settled that the valuation as fixed in the plaint unless modified or corrected by the Court, determines the forum of appeal and in the instant case the same was fixed at Rs,200, which valuation was accepted by the learned trial Court, therefore, the appeal as filed before the learned District Judge was competent. The said appeal was erroneously returned by the learned District Judge and although the petitioners had accepted the said order, yet it would not make any difference firstly for the reason that the mistake committed by the Court, as observed earlier, cannot injure any litigant and secondly the acceptance of the return by the petitioner cannot also estop them from challenging the said order for it is well-settled that a suitor cannot be estopped against the law.
7. In the circumstances, this revision is accepted with no order as to costs, resultantly the appeal is remitted to the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, to hear and determine the same on merits.