1. ' Applicant Gul Muhammad has sought the review of the order, dated 7-12-2000 passed in Civil Revision No,27 of 1998 whereby he had challenged the judgment and decree passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge Sukkur in Civil Appeal No,25 of 1995 who by the said order, directed the trial Court to return the plaint to applicant under Order 7, rule 10, C.P.C. For presenting the same before the competent Court having jurisdiction in the matter as the suit was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the then trial Court.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the case are that the applicant was owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No,892 admeasuring about one Acre and 10 Ghuntas in Deh Tapa Panoakil. Subsequently, the respondent No,2 sold area of one Acre and three Ghuntas out of Survey No,1256 and 2 Acres and 2 ghuntas from Survey No,1257 to respondent No,l. Through oral statement before Mukhtiarkar Panoakil for the consideration of Rs,98,000. The applicant claimed his right of pre-emption and stated in the plaint that the value was falsely fixed at Rs,90,000. In fact the land was sold to respondent for Rs,14,500 and was accordingly mutated on 4-5-1994 in favour of Muhammad Saddiq. The applicant made required demand from the respondent and on their refusal to accede to his demand filed a suit for pre-emption.
3. ' The parties adduced their evidence and the trial Court ultimately dismissed the suit of applicant.
4. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by applicant on the ground that the suit was undervalued and the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction. He: however, held that the appellant had no right of pre-emption and the required demands were not made in accordance with provisions of Muhammdan Law. The said judgment was called in question in the Court learned District Judge Sukkur. The appeal was heard and dismissed by learned 1st Additional District Judge vide order, dated 26-11-1997. Last para. Of the judgment Appellate Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "Since the material prejudiced has been caused to the appellant and since the subject-matter of the suit was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court instead of adopting the proper procedure decided the case on merits as such the judgment and decree passed by him is contrary to law. Resultantly the judgment and decree dated 9-4-1995 and 14-4-1995 respectively passed in C.S. No,17 of 1994 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court with direction that the plaint shall be returned to the appellant under Order 7, rule 10, C.P.C. For, presenting before the Court of competent jurisdiction as the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge Panoakil. The parties are left to bear their own costs. With these observations the appeal is disposed of in the above terms."
5. ' The applicant against the said judgment filed civil revision which was decided, by me on 7-12- 2000. The last operative para. Of the order is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "The record of two Courts below reveals that suit land was sold by respondent No,2 in favour of respondent No,l. The mutation was accordingly made in Revenue Record in the office of Mukhtiarkar Panoaqil. The mutation entry indicates that land was sold for the consideration of Rs,98,000. Such Pass Book was issued by the Mukhtiarkar concerned which reflected the same price. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that the suit was wrongly filed before that Court as it was out of its pecuniary jurisdiction, then in that event, he should have returned the plaint under Order 7, rule 10, C.P.C. To applicant for its presentation before the competent Court having pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter, rather than to dismiss it. The suit was dismissed by the Court on merits which had no jurisdiction in the matter. The Appellate Court has rightly observed that the trial Court should have returned the plaint as stated above. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and needs no interference".
6. ' Consequently this revision is meritless and is dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs."
7. ' The contention of the applicant is that the said order be reviewed on the ground that no court-fee is required to be paid on the basis of value of subject-matter in view of sub clauses (v) and (vi) of section 7 of Court Fees Act. It is submitted that for the purpose of possession of land in pre- emption cases, the court-fee is to be calculated on the basis of Land Revenue and the Court has erroneously determined the court-fee on the basis of value of subject-matter. The reliance is placed upon the case of Illahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Bilquees Begum PLD 1985 SC 393.
8. ' Section 7 clause (v) of Court Fees Act reads as under:-- "(v) For possession of lands, houses and gardens: In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens".'
9. ' According to the value of the subject-matter: and such value shall be deemed to be:--."
(a) Where the subject-matter in land and, where net profits have arisen from such land during the year next before date of presenting the plaint---
(b) Where the subject-matter is land and where no such profits have arisen therefrom market value of such land;
(c) Where the subject-matter is a house or garden according to the market value of the house or garden."
10. ' Section 1-A of Court Fees Act empowers the Provincial Government to fix charges in relation to fee or stamps. Similarly under section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, the powers have been conferred upon the Provincial Governments to make rules for determining the value of land for purpose of jurisdiction in the suits mentioned in the Court Fees Act, 1870, section 7 paragraphs (v) and (vi) and paragraph (x) of clause (d). The sub-clause (v) is substituted in different manners by the various Provinces. Sub-clause (v) has been substituted by Province Punjab is as under:-- "PUNJAB ' For The existing clause (v), the following shall be substituted:-
(v) in suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens according to the value of the subject- matter; and such value shall be deemed to be;
(a) Where the subject-matter is land and where net profits have arisen from such land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint:--
(b) Where the subject-matter is land and where no such profits have arisen therefrom.
(c) Where the subject-matter is a house or garden according to the market value of the house of garden."
11. ' Whereas Province of Sindh vide Sindh Ordinance 13 of 1974 has substituted the same sub-clause
(v) in the following manner:--- "For the existing clause (v) the following clause shall be substituted.
12. ' In suits for the possession of a land, house or garden according to the value of the subject-matter, and the market value of the land, house or garden shall be deemed to be such value."
13. The connotation and plain reading of substituted clause (v) for Province of Sindh is clear that court-fee in regard to possession of land, house and garden is to be computed on the basis of value of subject-matter and the market value of the land, house or garden shall be deemed to be such value.
14. ' In this view of the matter, I am of the view that case of Illahi Bakhsh and others has no bearing to the facts of the instant case and the computation of court-fee under clauses (v) and (vi) in Province of Punjab is different. The case of Illahi Bakhsh and others (supra) is pertaining to Punjab pre-emption Act whereas the clause (v) of Court Fees Act has different implication in Province of Sindh. The order, dated 7-12-2000 needs no revival. C.M.A. No,92 of 2001 is misconceived and is dismissed with no order as to costs.