WAHID BUX BROHI, J.-- This appeal under Section 96, CPC impugns the judgment/decree dated 25.2.1999 in Civil Suit No. 1722/96 (Old No. 720/83) passed by IlIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East decreeing the suit.
2. The suit for specific performance and injunction filed by Abdul Jabbar, the respondent, against Mst. Aqeela Majeed, the appellant and her husband Abdul Majeed was initially instituted in this Court on original side, valuing it for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court-fee at Rs. 3,00,000/- for the relief of specific performance and vacant possession and at Rs. 200/- each for injunction and declaration. Consequent upon change in the law as to pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, the suit was transferred to Civil Court and was received by the Court of .11nd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East on 8.12.1996. It is needless to enter into a Discussion on the facts of the case pleaded by the parties, as instantly the matter has been argued on the point of maintainability of the appeal on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Nevertheless, it would suffice to mention that on the basis of evidence on record the suit of respondent was decreed as mentioned above.
3. Mr. Syed Riaz Haider, learned counsel for respondent contended that in consequence of amendment made in section 18 of the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 through Sindh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1994 with effect from 27.7.1994 an appeal from a decree of Civil Judge shall lie to district Judge in case the value of the original suit, in which the decree was made, does not exceed Rs. 5,00,000/- Since, according to him, the value of the original suit was less than Rs. 5,00,000/- the appeal would lie to District Judge and was not competent before this Court. He also relied on 1999 SCM R 394 (Muhammad Ayub v. Obaidullah) and 2000 CLC 1493 (National Bank of Pakistan v.
Muhammad Akram Khan) in support of his contention.
4. Mr. Muhammad Yaseen Azad, learned counsel for appellant was under the impression that pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court in civil appeals was above Rs. 2,50,000/-, therefore, the appeal in this Court is maintainable.
5. At the outset it may be emphasized that the law is well- settled that the forum of civil appeal is to be determined in accordance with the value of the suit as mentioned in the plaint irrespective of fixation of the price of disputed property by the Trial Court.
The rule laid down in Muhammad Ayub's case (1999 SCM R 394) removes all doubts with regard to this proposition. Case of National Bank of Pakistan, Lahore (2000 CLC 1493) is also on the same point learned counsel for parties were fair enough to admit that the suit was originally valued at Rs.
3,00,400/- which is a matter of record and in particular reference may be made to para 33 of the plaint.
6. Now, in order to appreciate the crucial point it would be beneficial to reproduce section 18 of the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 as amended by Sindh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1994, which reads as under:-- "18. Appeal from Civil Judges. (1) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of Civil Judge shall lie:--
(a) to the High Court if the value of the original suit in which the decree or order was made exceeding five hundred thousand;
(b) to the District Judge in any other case."
7. The above amendment had come into force with effect from 27.7.1994 that is to say much before passing of the impugned judgment and decree. A plain reading of the above provision would admit of no doubt about the legal position that the instant appeal having been preferred against the decree in a suit which was originally valued at Rs. 3,00,400/- was appealable to District Judge and not the High Court. The case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for respondent although relates to the Province of Baluchistan but the statutory position was exactly the same as regards section 18(1 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. I would, therefore, agree with learned counsel for respondent that owing to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction the appeal is not competent before this Court.
8. It was, however, pointed out that since the decree was passed much after the amendment of section 18 of the Ordinance and the appeal was not competent before this Court on account of pecuniary jurisdiction, the same may be dismissed. I am afraid this contention cannot be accepted as the dismissal of appeal would amount to adjudication in respect of vested rights of the parties, such decision cannot be rendered by the Court possessing no jurisdiction in the matter. It would not be fair to dismiss the appeal, in the circumstances. The points with respect to limitation and other legal as well as factual issues can be determined and decided by the Court having jurisdiction. The appeal may, in the circumstances, be returned to the Court of District Judge, Karachi East for hearing it himself .Or to transfer it to another competent Court.