' The brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that the respondent filed suit for mandatory injunction against the appellants with the prayer that respondent be directed to remove the poles installed by the appellants over the land of the respondent before the Civil Judge First Class, Chiniot. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 19-3- 1992. The respondent being aggrieved filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Chiniot which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 13-4-1993. The respondent being aggrieved filed Civil Revision No,741 of 1993 before this Court which was accepted and the case was remanded to the trial Court to decide fresh. The trial Court after remand decreed the suit conditionally vide judgment and decree, dated 29-6-1995. The respondent was directed to file an application before the appellants within one month and the appellants were directed to decide the application of the respondent within six months otherwise suit of the respondent be decreed. The respondent filed an application before the appellants but the appellants failed to decide the application of the respondent within the prescribed period. The respondent filed execution petition before the Executing Court on 30-1-1996. The Executing Court appointed Local Commission to determine the price of the land in question of the respondent on 23-11-1993. The Local Commission determined the value of the land in question Rs,9,00,000 which was accepted by the trial Court vide order, dated 7-5-1997. The appellants being aggrieved filed revision petition before the Additional District Judge, Chiniot on 14-6-1997. The appellants' counsel under instructions had withdrawn the revision petition and sought return of the revision petition for its presentation before the proper Court. The First Appellate Court passed the order accordingly on 19-10-1999. The appellants did not present the memorandum of appeal and petition before this Court. The appellants presented appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge on 30-10-1999.
2. The learned counsel of the appellants submits that respondent tiled a suit for permanent injunction and fixed the court-fee for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction Rs,130 as given in para. 8 of the plaint. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 29-6-1995 by the Civil Judge First Class, Chiniot with the direction to the appellants to redress the grievance of the respondent within the specified period. The appellants did not redress the grievance or the respondent and respondent filed an application for execution of the judgment and decree, dated 29-6-1995 on 30-6-1996 which was accepted on 7th May, 1997. The appellants being aggrieved filed revision petition before the District Judge, Chiniot and the learned counsel of the appellants had withdrawn the revision petition from -. The First Appellate Court on 1-10-1997 on the ground that the subject-matter of the suit is about Rs,9,00,000 which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge and sought return of the revision petition for its presentation to the proper Court.
The learned counsel of the appellants further urges that statement of the learned counsel of the appellants is not in accordance with law and the admission of the counsel of the appellants on the question of law is not binding on the appellants.
3. The learned counsel of the respondent submits that appeal of the appellants is liable to be dismissed as time-barred as the order was passed by the Additional District Judge on 19-10-1999 and the appellants filed this appeal on 30-10-1999 and did not file appeal immediately after the return of memorandum of appeal. In support of his contention he relied on 2000 CLC 1290 (Khalida Begum v. Mst. Yasmin). He further submits that memorandum of revision was returned by the Additional District Judge to the appellants on the request of the counsel of the appellants, therefore, appeal of the appellants is not maintainable against the impugned order. He further submits that appellants had to present the memorandum of revision petition before this Court immediately after return of the memorandum of revision petition to the appellants. He further submits that the appellants have no legal right to file the appeal against the consent order. He further submits that appeal against the impugned order is not maintainable. In support of his contention he relied upon 2000 CLC 1290 (Khalida Begum v. Mst. Yasmeen).
4. The learned counsel of the appellants in rebuttal submits that appeal is competent against the impugned order by virtue of Order 43 Rule 1(a), C.P.C. He further submits that judgment relied upon by the learned counsel of the respondent is distinguished on facts and law. He further urges that appeal is competent before this Court. In support of his contention he relied upon Indian Law Reports 1902 Allahabad 174 (Waheed Ullah and others v. Kanhaya Lal). He further submits that impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and appeal be converted into revision petition or in Constitutional petition.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. The appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order is not maintainable under Order 43, Rule 1(a), C.P.C. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:--- 2000 CLC 1290 (Mst. Khalida Begum and 2 others v. Mst. Yasim and 4 others); 1992 CLC 1152 (Abdul Majeed v. Muhammad Afzal Khokhar) and 1986 MLD 606 (Pehalwan v. Abdul Sattar and others).
This Court has ample power to convert the appeal into revision or Constitutional petition in the interest of justice and fair play at any stage of the proceedings. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down by this Court in Pehalwan's case (1986 MLD 606). The relevant observation is as follows:--- "Respectfully following the interpretation placed on Order XLIII, rule 1, clause (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Hari Chand v. Madan Lal and others (supra)) I hold that the appeal is not competent.
However, the verbal prayer of counsel for the appellant that the appeal may be treated as a revision petition is allowed in the interest of justice and the case has been heard as a revision petition."
' The aforesaid proposition of law is also supported by the following judgments:-- ' PLD 1982 Karachi 130 (Akhtar Nasinf s case); PLD 1982 Karachi 542 (Saleh's case) 1989 CLC 1949 (Mst. Sameena Suhail's case) and 1999 SCMR 394 (Muhammad Ayub and 4 others v. Dr. Obaidullah and 6 others).
6. In view of what has been discussed above this appeal is converted into writ petition and the same is decided as such.
It is also settled proposition of law that admission of counsel of a party on question of law is not binding on the parties. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:--- ' PLD 1958 Lahore 169 (Abdul Ghafoor v. Thal Development Authority, Joharabad); PLD 1969 Lahore 404 (Mirza Abdul Hameed and another v. The Custodian of Evacuee Property and another) and PLD 1965 SC 690) Haji Obaidullah Khan and others v. Nisar Muhammad Khan etc).
' It is admitted fact that respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellants and affixed the court-fee for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction Rs,130 as is evident from para. 8 of the plaint. It is settled law that the forum of appeal is to be determined not on the basis of market value of the land, but it is to be determined on the basis of value of original suit. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:-- PLD 1966 SC 461 (Dr. Abdul Ghafoor's case); PLD 1985 SC 393 (Mst. Bilqees Begum's case) and 1999 SCMR 394 (Muhammad Ayyub and 4 others v. Dr. Obaidullah and 6 others).
' In the result, the order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 19-10-1999 is set aside and the memorandum of revision petition appeal be returned to petitioner for presentation to the proper Court.
' Before parting with this case, it may be clarified that the revisional Court will decide the revision in accordance with law, untrammelled by any observation on merits made by this Court in this judgment or any order passed and other ancillary proceedings.
' The appeal succeeds and is allowed without any order as to costs. Since the matter relates to the year 1992 the revisional Court is directed to decide the revision petition of the appellants within six months. Parties are directed to appear before revisional Court on 16-7-2001. /Order accordingly.