ABDUL BARI vs DIL AFROZ
This civil revision petition arises from an order passed by the Additional District Judge upholding the trial court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and recovery of royalty based on an agreement. The core legal question concerned the proper appellate forum for challenging interlocutory orders where the plaint was valued at Rs. 19,22,800. The court held that under Section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 and Section 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, appellate jurisdiction is determined by the valuation fixed in the plaint, meaning the appeal against the interlocutory order lay before the High Court rather than the District Judge. Consequently, the appellate order passed by the District Judge was held to be without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The principle laid down is that the forum of appeal for interlocutory orders is governed by the valuation in the plaint, and filing an appeal in the wrong forum renders the resulting appellate decision a nullity, leaving the original trial court order final if the proper forum is no longer accessible due to limitation.
- How is the appellate forum for challenging interlocutory orders determined under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962?
- Whether an appeal against an interlocutory order in a suit valued at Rs. 19,22,800 lies before the District Judge or the High Court?
- What is the legal status of an appellate order passed by a forum that lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal?
- Section 18, West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962
- Section 106, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' This is a revision against the order, dated 30-9-1999 of the learned Additional District Judge, Dir, whereby the refusal to grant temporary injunction by the learned trial Court on 8-5-1999, was upheld.
2. Hamidullah petitioner/plaintiff brought a suit against numerous defendants including the Government for a declaration to the effect that under agreement, dated 4-12-1991, he was entitled to exploit the forest and to receive the royalty thereof. The plaint also included a prayer for permanent injunction and for the grant of the amount of royalty which has been received by respondents Nos. 10 to 12 that amounted to Rs,29,22,800 in addition to the prayer for rendition of accounts.
3. It is an admitted fact that the original plaint was valued for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee at Rs,19,22,800 with particular reference to prayer 'Jeem'. Under section 18 of the Civil Court Ordinance, 1962, an Appellate Court assumes jurisdiction on the basis of valuation fixed in the plaint and not on the basis of a decree granted or refused. Again under section 106, C.P.C., the forum of appeal against interlocutory orders is the same which has the jurisdiction to entertain the appeals against decrees.
4. The question would, therefore, be as to what would be the appellate forum in the instant case.
Under the above law and in view of the valuation fixed, the interlocutory order required to be challenged before the High Court 'and not before the District Judge. The appeal before the District Judge was, therefore, filed without jurisdiction and the order of the District Judge, dated 30-9-1999 was also without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
5. There being no appeal filed before the High Court and the limitation thereabout also having elapsed, the original order, dated 8-5-1999 passed by the trial Court has become final. It cannot now be challenged in appeal before the High Court. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed as non-maintainable in limine alongwith Civil Miscellaneous Nos.1 and 2 of 2000.