Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. : This is an appeal against the judgment, March 20, 1963, of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court dismissing an appeal and a Revision filed by the present appellant. The appeal arises under the following circumstances. A suit was filed by the appellant in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi for three reliefs in respect of a business in which the respondent was stated to be the manager and also for ejectment of the respondent from the premises in which the business was being carried on. The same valuation was adopted for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. The valuation was divided into three parts: Rs. 4,000 were taken as the valuation for rendition of accounts or arrears of rent, Rs. 130 for injunction and Rs. 710 for ejectment - Total Rs. 4,840. During the hearing of the suit and on objection by the defendant, the valuation for ejectment was raised to Rs. 1,800. It appears that the appellant paid the additional court-fee but did not amend the plaint. The suit was decreed in part on May 11, 1961. The appellant obtained a decree for Rs. 600 as arrears of rent for 3/4 portion of the shop and Rs. 463.33P. as damages for 1/4 portion of the shop ejectment from which portion was also decreed in his favour. But the suit was dismissed as to the remaining arrears of rent or for accounts and ejectment from 3/4 of the premises.

2. The plaintiff (appellant) thereupon filed an appeal in the District Court of Delhi. In stating the valuation for the appeal, he correctly described the three-fold valuation in the suit as Rs. 4,000, Rs. 130 and Rs. 1,800 (total Rs. 5,930). He however valued the appeal as follows:

Rs. 3,400 as the valuation for arrears of rent or for rendition of accounts, Rs. 130 for injunction and Rs. 1,350 for ejectment - (Total Rs. 4,880).

3. Now it is obvious that if the valuation was Rs. 4,880 the appeal would have lain in the District Court, but if the appeal had to be valued at Rs. 5,930, it had to go before the High Court. When the notice of the appeal was served on the defendant (respondent) he filed a cross-objection in the same court but did not take any exception to the valuation of the appeal in the District Court on its presentation in that Court. On July 26, 1962, the District Judge made an order upholding a preliminary objection taken before him at the hearing that the memorandum of appeal was liable to be returned for presentation to the proper court, and he ordered the memorandum of appeal to be so returned. It appears that it was filed in the High Court the same day and, therefore, there was no loss of time after the return of the memorandum. The appeal was delayed by nearly one year.

4. It may, however, be mentioned that the plaintiff (appellant) did not submit to the decision of the District Court but took the matter in revision before the High Court. The appeal as re-presented and the application for revision were disposed of by the common judgment under appeal before us. The High Court held that there was no ground for extending time under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for which purpose an application had been subjoined to the appeal filed in the High Court.

5. The question in this case is whether the High Court was right in dealing with this problem as it did. The High Court seemed to be of the opinion that an Advocate (Mr. K. K. Raizada) of 34 years standing could not possibly make the mistake in view of the clear provisions on the subject of appeals existing in S. 39 (1) of the Punjab Courts Act. That sub-section at that time clearly showed that appeals of the value of Rs. 5,000 must be filed before the District Court but appeals above Rs. 5,000 must be filed before the High Court. The High Court also felt that the learned counsel persisted in pursuing his own theory by filing a revision. It is on this account that time was denied to the present appellant in the appeal. The only question is whether the decision of the High Court can be accepted.

6. The law is settled