1. ' These revision applications are directed against the judgment and decree of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi, West in Civil Appeal No,7 of 1996, dated 22-4-1996 and 22-5- 1996 respectively maintaining the judgment and decree, dated 10-12-1995 and 12-12-1995 in Suit No,1746 of 1988.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1 instituted Suit No,1746 of 1988 in the Court of IInd Senior Civil Judge, West, Karachi against Messrs Republic Motor (Pvt.) Ltd., the Sindh Industrial Trading Estate, Karachi the respondents Nos.! And 2 respectively for declaration and injunction.
3. ' The plaintiff/respondent No,1 in his suit pleaded that since 1956, he remained in physical possession of a Plot bearing No,B/68 measuring 2.09 acres, S.I.T.E, Karachi. When he approached the respondent No,2, he came to know that Messrs Republic Motors (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi which is a Nationalized Industry vide President of Pakistan Economic Reforms Order No,1 of 1972 is also one of the claimant of the said Plot No,B/68, S.I.T.E., Karachi and as such the respondent No2. Refused to accept non-utilization charges from him. The respondent No,1 claimed that no Cosmetics Industry was taken over by Government of Pakistan according to the aforesaid order. The respondent No,1, prayed for declaration that Messrs Republic Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. Has no right or title over the said plot and the respondent No,2, illegally refused to accept non-utilization charges from him in respect of the alleged plot, he further prayed for permanent injunction against the said Messrs Republic Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. Applicant contested the Civil Suit No,1746 of 1988 and Civil Appeal No,7 of 1996 before the Court of IInd Senior Civil Judge, West, Karachi and 1st Additional District Judge, West, Karachi.
4. ' The applicants who were defendants in the suit, in their written statement took the plea that Messrs Haroon Cosmetics was a fully owned sister concern of Messrs Republic Motors (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi (Formerly known as Messrs Haroon Industries Ltd., which was Nationalized through the order of President of Pakistan Economic Reforms Order No,1 of 1972), as such plot in question bearing No,B/68, S.I.T.E., Manghopir Road, Karachi was also in their physical possession, but the respondent No,1, took over forcible/illegal possession of the said plot in 1987. The said Republic Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. Specifically denied the allegations of respondent No,1 made by him in Civil Suit No,1746 of 1998.
5. ' During the proceedings Messrs Republic Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. Applicant in R.A. 166 of 1996 in support of their contents of written statement, in Civil Court in respect of plot in question oral and produced documentary evidence and placed reliance on the official record comprising of the (1) Original Allotment Order as Exh.No,D/2 (2) Original Letters Exhs.D.3, D.4 and D/5 regarding extension of area of the suit plot and acknowledgement issued by the respondent No,2. And (3) Original Ground rent challan paid by the said Messrs Republic Motors, through cheques to the respondent No,2, every year as Exhs.D/6 to D/6-M, and acknowledgement of other ground rent amount by the respondent.
6. No,2 from the said Republic Motors (State Enterprise).
7. ' The applicant in R.A. No,222 of 1996 adopted the written statement filed by the said Messrs Republic Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. During the proceedings before the trial Court it was contended by the applicant that regarding Haroon Cosmetics the record shows that it did not have a legal status as the company separate and distinct from the applicant Republic Motors Ltd. Previously Haroon Industries Ltd. Nationalized Automobile Industry, and it was one of the fully owned concern of the Haroon Industries Ltd. On nationalization all assets of the then Haroon Industries, including the plot in question vested to the Government of Pakistan and as such Government of Pakistan is the owner of said plot and not the respondent No,1 as the entire investment towards the cost was made by Haroon Industries Ltd. The details of the investment are supported by the accounts and balance- sheet of Messrs Haroon Industries Ltd. Prepared for the period when the unit was run by respondent No,1 and are produced in evidence and the mere fact of the documents pertaining to the said plot being in the name of a director who did not make the investment from his personal funds but out of the funds of the nationalized unit. Mr. Abdus Samad, Advocate for respondent No,2 has adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of respondent No,1 he further added that in the record of respondent No,2, the respondent No,1 is shown as the owner of the said plot.
8. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has advanced arguments in support of the application. His contention is that both the learned trial Courts ignored the evidence already available on record.
9. The error of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the record which makes it a fit case for the exercise of revisional powers of this Court under section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908. On the first point of misreading of evidence is placed on the balance-sheet of Messrs Republic Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. For the year prior to the immediately before the Nationalization took place. The document was exhibited as Exh.D./20 as at 31-3-1971. Syed Ziauddin Rizvi Exh.D./1 who appeared as D.W.1. In his statement before the learned trial Court produced the original balance sheet, copy whereof was retained on record and is available at page 463 of the file of the record. This consolidated balance-sheet as at 31-3- 1971 certified by Mushtaq & Company, Chartered Accountant reveals the assets of Messrs Haroon Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. At Rs,5,02,29,894.74. These assets are in the form of the investments made in Exh.D20 as under:-- Head Office = Rs,4,11,45,019.71 Karachi Autos = Rs,8,91,321.71 Lahore Autos = Rs,1,10,289.45 Assembly Plan = Rs,61,57,820.44 Parts Division = Rs,98,134.32 Property and assets = Haroon Cosmetics Fixed Capital Expenditure. = - Assets less depreciation to date as per= - schedule Attached. = Rs,86,255.00 Haroon Cabs Goods on Consignment= - With dealers current assets= Rs,10,19,139.69 Stock in hand = Rs,7,92,189.52 Stock in transit = Rs,2,08,712.14 Work in progress = Rs,18,238.03 Stock with Hirers = Debtors = Rs,2,69,313.90 Unsecured considered good= Rs,2,69,313.90 Considered doubtful = Rs,18,945.97 Less: Provision for bad and doubtful debts= Rs,18,945.97 Amount due from Directors= - Advances, Deposits and repayments= Rs,26,15r.50 Advances to staff = Rs,680.00 Advances for supply of goods= Rs:20,287.72 Advances for expenses = Details = Rs,2,260.72 Prepayments = Rs,2,923.06 Bonus Vouchers on hand = - Investment at cost = - Preoperational expenses = - Cash and Bank balances = Rs,1,021.87 In hand = - In transit = -Haroon Motors Multan = Rs,2,16,863.31 Haroon Motors Hyderabad = Rs,44,375.44 Paktrack Caterpillar Department= Rs,11,80,337.58 Engineering Division = Rs,1,78,564.65 Paktrat Otis Elevator = Rs,14,653.94 Haroon Cosmetics = Rs,6,73,298.35 H.S.T.C. Clearing and Forwarding= Rs,1,24,534.13 H.S.T.C. Agency Division = Rs,84,448.67 Total Rupees = Rs,5.02.29,894.74 ' The same document reveals the investment in Haroon Cosmetics is made by Haroon Industries Limited as under:- ' The admitted position which thus emerges is that the value of this asset as revealed in the Haroon Industries Limited Consolidated Balance-sheet at 31st March, 1971 and Trading and Profit and Loss Account for the year ended 31st March, 1971 is that Haroon Cosmetics is owned and financed by Haroon Industries Limited and reflected as such in the books of accounts prior to the nationalization as recorded by the previous management and not proprietary concern of respondent No,1.
10. ' The suit was instituted before the trial Court on 26-8-1988 for declaration and injunction.
11. Respondent No,1 in paragraph No,20 of the plaint valued the suit as follows:-- "That for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs,800 for relief of declaration and at Rs,800 for relief of injunction. The payment of court-fee is exempted under the law."
12. ' The prayer sought are as follows:- -
(I) for declaration that the defendant No,2 has no right title or At bank = Rs,1,021.87 Intra-Branch Accounts = - Before transfer of profit for loss for the year= Rs,7,28,583.61 Inter Departmental Balance= - Due from East Pakistan Branches= - Branch adjustment account= - Total Rupees = Rs,6.73.298.35interest in Plot No,B/68 situated at S.I.T.E., Karachi.
(II) For declaration that the defendant No,1 acted illegally by refusing to receive the payment from the plaintiff towards non- utilization fee of the plot in question and maintained status quo.
(III) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant No,1 their executors, administrators, attorneys, servants or any other persons claiming through or under their from transferring and from effecting the mutation of Plot No,B/68, S.I.T.E., Karachi in the name of defendant No,2.
(IV) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant No,2, their executors, administrators, attorneys, servants or any other person claiming through or under them from assuring any right, title or interest or claiming transfer of the Plot No,B/68, S.I.T.E., Karachi in their name or altering its' position.
(V) Cost of the suit.
(VI) Any other relief in the interest of justice which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
13. ' Heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents opposing this application is that the matter pertains to concurrent finding of fact as to the ownership of the property which is not open to interference under section 115. The applicant did not produce any evidence before the trial Court to substantiate his claim for ownership of the suit property. Reliance is placed on the case of Lord Porter, Sir Madhavan Nair and Sir John Beaumont v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras AIR 1949 PC 156, S. Zafar Ahmed v. Abdul Khaliq PLD 1964 (W.P.) Kar. 149, Farid Khan v. Atiqur Rehman and another PLD 1983 Kar. 510, Tila Muhammad v. Maqsood and 3 others 1984 CLC 984 and Abdul Shakoor v. Hafiz Muhammad Rafique NLR 1995 UC 87. The second contention is that the applicant failed to point out any illegality in judgment as held in Shafi Muhammad and others v. Mst. Rasheeda Bibi through Attorney Qameruddin 1997 M LD 385. That the revision was untenable as applicant. Was unable to point out in jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment . Reliance was placed on the case of Waheed Gul v. Mst. Saida Jan 1998 M LD 3 and Province of Punjab through Collector, Mianwali v.
14. Muhammad Hassan and another 1999 M LD 1084.
15. ' The third contention of the learned counsel that in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence of concurrent findings Courts below could not be interfered in revisional jurisdiction as held in the case of Riasat Ali and 3 others v. Ch. Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmed Sindhu and 2 others 1999 CLC 1995 and Fateh Muhammad v. Barkat Ali 1999 YLR 1788.
16. From this evidence available on record it is apparent that the subject-matter the suit pertain to assets worth several lacs of rupees much beyond the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court which was only up to Rs,50,000. Plaintiff did not appear personally in evidence but through an attorney who does not claim to be a witness having knowledge of the facts personally.
17. ' In view of the above the subject-matter of the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court and learned trial Court proceeded without jurisdiction. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the entire investment was made by Messrs Haroon Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. As reflected in the balance-sheet for the period prior to the date of nationalization. The Courts below have failed to consider the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence which is available on record and the judgments and decree of the trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court are contrary to the documentary evidence on record and as such the case-law cited on behalf of respondent No,1 is not applicable to the present case. It has now been settled that the decision should be according to law and the power conferred is not a power to make decision wrongly, in the present case the admitted record maintained by the previous management produced and exhibited by the applicants is ignored which makes the judgments without jurisdiction. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC 447 as follows:-- "I cannot agree with the learned Judge in the High Court. The view of the learned Judge that this Court has ruled that even if the order of a Tribunal is wrong in law, the High Court still cannot intervene in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction is not justified and I feel that the judgments of this Court in the case of Muhammad Hussain Munir PLD 1974 SC 139 and Zulfiqar Khan Awan 1974 SCM R 530 have not been read in their proper context. It is not right too say that the Tribunal, which is invested with the jurisdiction to decide a particular matter, has the jurisdiction to decide it ' rightly or wrongly' because the condition of the grant of jurisdiction is that it should decide the matter in accordance with the law. When the Tribunal goes wrong in law, it goes outside the jurisdiction conferred on its because the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide rightly but not the jurisdiction to decide wrongly. Accordingly, when the Tribunal makes an error of law in deciding the matter before it, it goes outside its jurisdiction and, therefore, a determination of the Tribunal which is shown to be erroneous on a point of law can be quashed under the writ jurisdiction on the ground that it is in excess of its jurisdiction: ' It needs hardly be said that under Article 4 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it is the right of every individual to be dealt with in accordance with law. Where the law has not been correctly or properly observed a case for interference by the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction is made out."
18. Value of suit for purpose of court-fee does not bring a suit within the jurisdiction of the Court where the subject-matter of the suit exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of Court as held by a Division C Bench of this Court in the case of Acharya Davendra Prasadji and 2 others v. Tirthdas and 10 others PLD 1972 Kar. 251, Imamuddin and another v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1959 Kar. 802, S. Zafar Ahmed v. Abdul Khalique PLD 1964 Kar. 386, Muhammad Sadiq v. Haji Ahmed & Company and Badrul Islam v. Qamarul Islam and 4 others PLD 1971 Kar.
19. 682.
20. Accordingly these revision applications are allowed and the judgment and decree of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, West, Karachi in Civil Appeal No,7 of 1996, dated 22-5-1996 is set aside as without jurisdiction with costs in favour of the applicants.