IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HACJ 
 
MR. JUSTICE IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN 
 
MR. JUSTICE TARIQ PARVEZ 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1471 OF 2015 
(Against the judgment dated 29.6.2015 of the 
Peshawar 
High 
Court, 
Abbottabad 
Bench, 
Abbottabad passed in RFA No.30-A/2012) 
 
 
Zahid Zaman Khan etc. 
 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
Khan Afsar etc. 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the appellant(s): 
Haji Ghulam Basit, ASC 
 
 
For the respondent(s): 
Mr. Abdul Rashid Awan, ASC 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR 
 
 
Amicus curiae: 
Mr. Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi, Sr. ASC 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
02.02.2016 
… 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- In this appeal with the leave of 
the court we are required to resolve the primary question as to what 
should be the forum of appeal where the value of the suit as fixed 
in the plaint has been changed by the court? Ancillary to the above, 
there are some other connected questions which are duly reflected in 
the leave granting order (LGO) and shall be accordingly addressed. 
2. 
 
In this context, the brief facts of the case are that the 
appellants filed a suit (bearing No.167/1 of 2007) for declaration to the effect 
that they are the owners in possession of the suit land with further 
relief seeking protection of their possession. Respondent No.1 (the 
respondent) also filed a suit (bearing No.166/1 of 2007) qua the same land for 
declaration, possession and permanent injunction etc. against the 
Civil Appeal No.1471 of 2015 
-: 2 :-
appellants on the basis of his entitlement to the property. It is 
pertinent to mention that the appellants had valued their suit for the 
purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- whilst the 
respondent valued his suit at Rs.900/-. The learned Trial Judge 
consolidated the suits on 26.4.2008. An additional issue was framed 
in the suit of the respondent qua the valuation of that suit for the 
purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. Vide single judgment dated 
31.1.2012 the Trial court dismissed the suit of the appellants and 
decreed that of the respondent. With respect to the additional issue 
about the valuation, the court held:- 
 
“To prove the facts mentioned in the additional issue, 
plaintiffs produced eight witnesses and according to their 
statements the market value of the suit property is 
approximately 30 Lac rupees and as the defendant No.1 in 
his connected suit also sought the relief of possession in 
alternate, therefore, he is directed to affix the proper courfee 
within thirty days. Hence, the issue is decided accordingly”.  
 
Consequently, the respondent paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- (fifteen 
thousand) as court fee and the said valuation of the suit for the purposes 
of jurisdiction, as determined by the court, was also reflected in the 
decree passed in favour of the respondent. 
3. 
 
The appellants filed one regular first appeal (RFA No.30-
A/2012) before the learned Peshawar High Court challenging the 
judgment and both the decrees. The respondent raised a preliminary 
objection to the effect that for the purposes of determining the forum 
of appeal the valuation given in the plaint would be relevant and not 
the one determined by the learned Trial Court, and since the value of 
the suits fixed by both the plaintiffs 
Civil Appeal No.1471 of 2015 
-: 3 :-
below the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court, therefore, the 
appeal was not competent before the High Court. The respondent 
relied on a judgment of the learned Peshawar High Court dated 
24.4.2015 passed in RFA No.41/2002.  The learned High Court 
allowed this objection vide impugned judgment, holding:- 
 
“I am of the view that the preliminary objection raised by the 
learned counsel for the respondents holds the field. 
Therefore, the instant appeal is held not competent before 
this Court. Consequently, office is directed to return the 
appeal to the appellants for its presentation before the 
proper forum by retaining photocopies thereof”. 
 
Hence the present appeal (with leave of the court). 
4. 
 
Leave in this case was granted on 4.11.2015 to consider 
the following propositions:- 
i. 
Where the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction 
fixed in the plaint has been altered (increased) by the civil 
court (trial court), what shall be the forum of appeal in view 
of the provisions of Section 18(1)(a)(b) of the Civil Courts 
Ordinance, 1962; 
ii. 
Whether in the suits which are consolidated the trial court 
is obliged to pass separate decrees in each of the suits or a 
single decree shall be sufficient pursuant to a common 
judgment disposing of such suits; and 
iii. 
If 
two 
(or 
more) 
consolidated 
suits 
have 
different 
jurisdictional valuation and are decided through a 
common judgment but separate decrees have been drawn, 
what shall be the forum of appeal in relation to such 
suits/decrees; whether in such a situation the aggrieved 
party is obliged to file separate (RFA) appeals before 
District Court and the High Court as per the valuation of 
the suits, but the High Court where the appeal is 
competently filed against the common judgment and a 
decree which is pending can, in order to avoid conflict of 
Civil Appeal No.1471 of 2015 
-: 4 :-
judgments, withdraw the appeal filed/pending in the 
District Court and decide the same. 
 
5. 
 
In answering the first question, we need to see whether 
the trial court has the authority in law to change the valuation of the 
suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and to direct the 
plaintiff to pay the court fee according to the valuation so determined 
by the court. In this context two situations may arise; firstly where a 
suit’s valuation by the plaintiff is challenged by the defendant on the 
basis of the relevant law, i.e. the Court Fees Act, 1870 (the Court Fees Act) 
and Suit Valuation Act 1887 (the Suit Valuation Act), an issue is framed and 
evidence recorded. The court is obliged to determine and fix the correct 
valuation for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction (see 1980 CLC 589) 
and direct the plaintiff to make good the deficiency of the court fee. 
The plaintiff is bound to do so and failure to so do would entail the 
consequences under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908 (CPC). In the event that the value of the suit so determined 
exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, it (the court) shall send 
the matter to the District Judge for its transfer and entrustment to the 
court of competent jurisdiction. Secondly, in the cases where the 
defendant(s) is proceeded against ex-parte and there is no challenge to 
the valuation fixed in the plaint but where the court forms an 
impression that the suit is seemingly collusive and might have been 
filed to affect third party rights and/or is ostensibly undervalued, the 
Court is duty bound to determine and fix the value after holding such 
inquiry and collecting such material as may be deemed expedient by 
the court.  It would then direct the plaintiff to make good the 
deficiency of the court fee. It may emphatically be stated that the law 
enjoins a duty upon the Court to settle questions about its 
Civil Appeal No.1471 of 2015 
-: 5 :-
jurisdiction, because subject to certain exceptions, any decision 
rendered by the court having no jurisdiction stands vitiated on that 
account alone. We are fortified in our view by a judgment reported as 
Ch. Nazir Ahmed Vs. Abdul Karim and another (PLD 1990 SC 42), 
the relevant portion reads as under:- 
 
“It is well settled that the Court is bound to ascertain the 
deficiency in the court-fee affixed on the plaint and then give 
time to the plaintiffs to make up the deficiency and if he 
complies with the order within time, the defect in the plaint is 
deemed to have been removed from the date it had originally 
filed in Court.” 
 
Adverting now to the proposition itself, for the purposes of determining 
the forum of appeal the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Civil Courts 
Ordinance, 1962 (the Ordinance) are relevant which are reproduced 
hereunder:- 
 
“18. 
Appeals from Civil Judges.— (1) Save as aforesaid, 
an appeal from a decree or order of a Civil Judge, shall lie -
- 
(a) to the High Court if the value of the original suit in 
which the decree or order was made exceeds twenty 
five hundred thousand rupees. 
 
(b) to the District Judge in any other case.” 
 
Section 18 ibid applies to regular first appeal(s) from the decree or 
order of the Civil Judge. For the purposes of this proposition the most 
important words of the section are “the value of the original suit”. 
Obviously the value of the original suit initially is the one which has 
been fixed by the plaintiff in his plaint, but where the court in either of 
Civil Appeal No.1471 of 2015 
-: 6 :-
the two situations outlined above has increased the valuation, the 
determination made by the court shall be “the value of the original suit” 
and the value initially fixed by the plaintiff shall cease to exist, and 
shall for all intents and purposes on account of the judicial 
determination stand substituted (by the valuation of the court). It would be 
absurd if, even after the court having made a judicial determination to 
increase the value, the initial value which was found to be wrong by 
the court were to be given precedence over the courts’ determination 
and the forum of appeal were to be settled on that basis (i.e. the plaintiff’s 
valuation). We hold that the value determined by the court shall finally 
and exclusively be taken into account in terms of Section 18(1)(a) and 
(b) of the Ordinance as “the value of the original suit”. Reliance may be 
placed upon Zafeer Gul Vs. Dr. Riaz Ali (2015 SCMR 1691) wherein 
it has been held:- 
“Till final determination by the court, the valuation 
shown in the plaint was to be deemed as proper value of 
the suit property for the purpose of availing the remedy 
of appeal qua determining the forum of appeal.”  
(Emphasis supplied) 
 
Similarly in  Babu Jan Muhammad and others Vs. Dr. Abdul 
Ghafoor and others (PLD 1966 SC 461), the facts were that the ADJ 
hearing an appeal rejected an objection as to the valuation of the 
plaint and came to the conclusion that the value of the suit for the 
purposes of jurisdiction should be the value placed on the suit 
property by the plaintiffs and he thus arrived at the conclusion that 
the correct value for jurisdiction was in excess of Rs. 5,000 (as an amount 
of land revenue was liable to be added) on the plaintiffs own valuation and 
consequently the appeal lay before the High Court, holding that "if the 
plaintiff chooses to value his suit absolutely wrongly in utter disregard of the rules 
Civil Appeal No.1471 of 2015 
-: 7 :-
obtaining on the subject, even then such a valuation is to be treated as the correct 
valuation for the purposes of determining the forum of appeal". The next day, the 
appellants presented their appeal in the High Court, which dismissed 
it in limine.This Court, examining the facts held as below:- 
The learned Judges in the High Court appear to have 
thought that the plaintiffs were so plainly in error in 
their valuation of the suit for jurisdiction that they 
could not be allowed the benefit of the time spent in 
the Additional District Judge's Court, which led to the 
decision that the jurisdictional value was understated. 
They appear to have ignored the fact that it was not 
for the plaintiffs to vary the valuation in the plaint 
when it came to taking the matter in appeal against 
refusal of the Senior Civil Judge to restore the suit. The 
plaintiffs were bound by the valuation they had thus stated, 
in a suit of which the Senior Civil Judge had become seized, 
with the consequence that that valuation could not be altered 
by themselves, unless with the permission of the Senior Civil 
Judge. Equally, when they came to appeal against the 
adverse order of the Senior Civil Judge, they could not 
choose a forum on the basis of an altered valuation to be 
conceived, or made by themselves. In other words, it was 
essential that they should take their appeal to the District 
Judge, since the valuation of the suit for jurisdiction was 
below Rs. 5,000, and it was only after that Court had 
decided the matter definitely that they became entitled 
to go to the High Court as the proper Court of appeal.” 
(Emphasis supplied) 
 
In the case reported as Sana Ullah Vs. Muhammad Akhtar and 11 
others (1979 CLC 578) the learned Lahore High Court after 
considering quite a few precedents from the sub-continent came to the 
following conclusion:- 
Civil Appeal No.1471 of 2015 
-: 8 :-
 
“I am also of the view that the forum of appeal will be 
determined in a case where the valuation is not changed 
by the Court, by the value as fixed by the plaintiff but in a 
case where such a valuation has been changed by the 
Court after determining the real market value of the 
property, it will be that valuation which will be deemed to 
be the value of the original suit within the meaning of 
section 18 because the word 'value' means the value of the 
subject-matter of the suit. I am also of the view that in 
such a case whether the plaintiff contests the valuation 
arrived at by the Court or acquiesced in it, in either case 
the form for appeal will be determined by the valuation so 
found.” 
 
The findings of Nazir Ahmad and another vs. Muhammad Tahir 
(PLD 1992 Lahore 89), Muhammad Sharif Vs. Nawab Din and 
another (PLD 1957 (W.P.) Lahore 283), Suleman and others vs. Pir 
Baksh and others (2012 CLC 1457), Ilahi Baksh Vs. Bilqees Begum 
(PLD 1985 SC 393), Muhammad Nawaz Vs. Sher Muhammad (PLD 
1987 SC 284) and Abdul Majid and others Vs. Muhammad Walayat 
Khan through his Legal Heirs (1987 SCMR 1139) are to the same 
effect and reliance has been placed on some of these cases in Babu 
Jan Muhammad and others Vs. Dr. Abdul Ghafoor and others (PLD 
1966 SC 461). Learned counsel for the respondents however has 
placed reliance upon Muhammad Nawaz Vs. Sher Muhammad (PLJ 
1987 SC 262) and Muhammad Ayub vs. Obaidullah (1999 SCMR 
394) but on a close reading of these two dicta, we are of the opinion 
that they do not depart from the ratio of the judgments that the fora of 
appeal are to be determined on the basis of the valuation fixed by the 
court. Even otherwise the case of Muhammad Ayub is a leave refusing 
order and cannot be held to be the enunciation of law by this Court. 
Civil Appeal No.1471 of 2015 
-: 9 :-
6. 
 
In conclusion, we hold that the judicial determination of 
the value of a suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction by a 
judicial forum shall have precedence over the valuation made by the 
plaintiff and it shall be such valuation which shall be taken into 
account while determining the forum of appeal from a decree passed 
in such a suit. In other words, the judicial determination shall be the 
“value of the original suit” in terms of Section 18(1)(a) of the Ordinance. 
7. 
 
With respect to question No.2; it is settled law that it is 
the inherent power of the court to consolidate suits and the purpose 
behind it is to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to prevent abuse of 
the process of law and court and to avoid conflicting judgments1. No 
hard and fast rule forming the basis of consolidation can be definitive 
and it depends upon the facts and the points of law involved in each 
and every case, obviously where the court is persuaded that the 
interests of justice so demand, consolidation can be ordered, provided 
no prejudice is caused to any litigant and there is no bar in the way of 
the courts to consolidate the suits. Reverting to the proposition, there 
is no provision in the CPC where the court is obliged to prepare a 
separate decree in the consolidated suits. However, let us consider the 
importance of a decree that follows a judgment. Section 33 of CPC 
stipulates that:- 
 
“33. Judgment and decree.--The Court, after the case 
has been heard, shall pronounce judgment, and on such 
judgment a decree shall follow.” 
 
As is evident, a judgment is followed by a decree in a case. But where 
a common judgment is delivered disposing off two or more suits, how 
                                       
1 PLD 2006 SC 1262 and 1981 CLC 443 
Civil Appeal No.1471 of 2015 
-: 10 :-
many decrees are to be drawn up in such a case? In this respect it is 
important to keep in mind the principle that is embodied in the case of 
H. M. Saya & Co., Karachi Vs. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd., Karachi 
and another (PLD 1969 SC 65) that the Court ought not to act on the 
principle that every procedure is to be taken as prohibited unless it is 
expressly provided for. The Court should proceed on the principle that 
every procedure which furthers administration of justice is permissible 
even if there is no express provision permitting the same. Order XX 
Rule 6 of the CPC provides for the contents of a decree including 
necessary particulars inter alia, the number of the suit, the names and 
descriptions of the parties, the particulars of the claim, the relief 
granted or any other determination of the suit. In the circumstances it 
would be more appropriate that separate decrees are drawn up for 
each of the consolidated suits. 
 
An appeal lies against the decree and it is the decree which is 
executed. Additionally, for the purposes of appeal, the contents of the 
memorandum must state the grounds of objection to a decree. The 
requirement of a decree cannot be dispensed with and has to be filed 
along with the memo of appeal and it is for this reason that where an 
appeal is admitted without a copy of the decree, time may be granted 
by the court in appropriate cases to file the decree sheet2. In the 
judgment reported as Siraj Din and 11 others Vs. Rajada (1992 
SCMR 979) the circumstances were that two consolidated suits were 
disposed off through a common judgment which was challenged 
through an appeal before the District Judge. The decree sheet in one 
of the suits was appended with the memorandum of appeal. When the 
appeal was allowed the aggrieved party sought to file a second appeal 
                                       
2 See inter alia, 2004 SCMR 707; 1988 SCMR 892. 
Civil Appeal No.1471 of 2015 
-: 11 :-
on the basis that the earlier appeal challenged only one decree (the 
second appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay); the said 
second appeal was dismissed. This Court granted leave to consider 
whether filing of one appeal against the consolidated judgment in two 
consolidated suits relating to same or similar subject, had not satisfied 
the requirement of law and if not, whether mere technical controversy 
should not have been resolved in favour of the petitioners. This Court 
found that “On a question of fact we also find that two separate decrees in the two 
suits were in fact prepared”. This Court further held that there was no 
question of treating the earlier appeal as confined to one suit as the 
substance of the appeal showed that it was a composite attack on both 
suits. The point to note here is that this Court considered the 
preparation of two decrees in the consolidated judgment to be 
unremarkable and indeed the tenor of the judgment is to the effect 
that it was a failing of the appellate court not to require the party to 
attach the second decree at an earlier stage.   We direct all the trial 
courts of the country that where two or more suits have been 
consolidated and disposed of through a common judgment, that 
separate decree sheets with all the material particulars as per the 
requirements of Order XX of the CPC must be drawn up. This 
direction shall be for the future and consequence of non-compliance 
thereof shall be considered in appropriate cases. 
8. 
 
Adverting to the third question; it is settled law that a 
consolidated appeal is permissible against a consolidated judgment 
before the appellate forum provided that it has the pecuniary 
jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the decrees according to their 
valuation i.e. the valuation of the original suit. The appellants are 
required in law to specifically challenge both the decrees and also to 
Civil Appeal No.1471 of 2015 
-: 12 :-
affix the requisite court fee in the same manner as they would be so 
obliged to affix if separate appeals were filed. This brings us to the 
matter of those appeals in which the decrees passed have different 
valuations i.e. the one falling within the jurisdiction of the High Court 
and the other in the jurisdiction of the District Court; obviously no 
consolidated appeal can be filed. In such a situation the appellants are 
required in law to file two appeals according to the value of the original 
suit i.e. one before the District Judge and the other before the High 
Court. The learned High Court, however, while exercising its power 
under Section 24 of the CPC if a case is made out within the purview 
of the section ibid may, in order to avoid delay in the disposal of the 
matter and conflicting decisions, transfer the appeal filed before the 
District Judge to the High Court and decide the same along with the 
appeal which had been competently filed before the High Court. 
9. 
 
In light of the above, this appeal is partly allowed. The 
impugned judgment of the High Court, to the extent of the appeal in 
which the decree passed in favour of the respondent has been 
challenged and the memo of appeal has been returned is set aside. It 
is held that such appeal was competent before the High Court. 
However, to the extent of the other decree i.e. the one through which 
the suit of the appellants was held not competent, obviously the 
appellants are required to file fresh appeal before the District Judge. 
However as they had challenged that decree in the memo of appeal 
and appended the decree sheet therewith, as per the impugned order 
of the High Court, such certified copy of the decree sheet be returned 
to the appellants by the court within three days upon the production 
of the certified copy of this judgment. After having obtained the 
certified copy of the consolidated judgment and affixing therewith the 
Civil Appeal No.1471 of 2015 
-: 13 :-
decree sheet so returned to the appellants, a fresh appeal may be filed 
before the District Judge with the appropriate application seeking 
condonation of delay which (application) shall be decided by the District 
Court on its own merits. 
 
Before parting we must acknowledge the valuable assistance 
provided to us by the learned amicus. 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
Announced in open Court 
on 24.2.2016 at Islamabad 
Approved For Reporting 
Waqas Naseer/* 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
