Munir A. Sheikh, J.--This appeal has arisen from a suit for coloration with consequential relief for recovery of possession of land and or permanent injunction filed by the respondents in the Court of learned senior Civil Judge Swat. The suit was dismissed through judgment dated 8.4.1985. It appears that in original plaint the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee was fixed at Rs, 200/-. On the application of the present appellant that the value of the suit should be Rs, 1,40,000/- as one of the witness examined in the case stated that market value of the property was that much amount, the plaint was ordered to be amended and the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction was determined at Rs, 1,40,000/-. In 1992, pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain the appeal was up to Rs, 50,000/-. Subsequently, through an Act passed by the Provincial Assembly in 1994, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said Court in such cases was enhanced to Rs, 5,00,000/- through notification dated 6.8.1995, the applicability of which was extended to the Federally Administrated Tribunal Areas (FATA) inclusive of Swat. Irrespective of this clause, the appeal was, however, decided by the High Court through the impugned judgment dated 12.6.1996.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court at the relevant time was not vested with the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal and like all other cases which were transferred to District Court for disposal, this appeal should have also been transferred to the said Court.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents attempted to argue that when the appeal was admitted for hearing, the High Court was vested with the jurisdiction to decide it and if during the pendency of the said appeal law had been changed to enhance pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court, it did not have the effect of divesting the jurisdiction of the High Court, to decide such an appeal. He wanted to rely upon reported judgments from Indian Jurisdiction.
4. We need not go into the case law from Indian Jurisdiction for this Court in the case of Malik Gul Hassan & Co. and 5 others versus Allied Bank of Pakistan (1996 SCM R 237) has laid down the law that in such a situation, the High Court stands deprived of the jurisdiction to hear the appeal and should have transmitted the appeal to the District Court for disposal. A similar point was raised in that case to support that High Court was not divested of the jurisdiction in such like cases to hear the appeal but it was repelled.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents then argued that no objection was raised by the present appellant who was respondent in appeal that High Court was not vested with the jurisdiction to hear the appeal on account of want of pecuniary jurisdiction, therefore, this objection should not be allowed to be raised at this stage.
6. We are afraid this contention cannot be accepted because it is we settled law that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a Court which otherwise is not vested in it merely by consent or omission of any of the parties to objection.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted, judgment date 12.6.1996 of the Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court is hereby se aside being without jurisdiction and the appeal pending before the Peshawar High Court is ordered to be transmitted to the learned District Judge Swat for disposal on merits without being influenced by the impugned judgment which shall be deemed to have never been passed. Learned District Judge is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously and not later than six months from the date of appearance of the parties before the said Court in pursuance of this judgment.
8. No order as to costs.