1998 PLP 1979 (CLC)

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Provisions of S.115, C.P.C. would apply to cases involving illegal assumption, non‑exercise or irregular exercise of jurisdiction ‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction could not be invoked against conclusion of law or fact which would not, in any way, affect jurisdiction of Court, no matter how, erroneous, wrong or perverse decision might be either on a question of fact or law unless decision involved a matter of jurisdiction‑‑‑Erroneous conclusion of law or fact was liable to be corrected in appeal, but revision would not be competent on such ground, unless in arriving at such conclusion, an error of law, had been committed. Ch. Abdul Hafeez for Petitioner

2. An ejectment petition against the petitioner/tenant culminated into an order of his eviction from the premises, involved therein. Fortune did not smile upon him even in appeal, which, too met the fate of dismissal. As a sequel thereto, the respondent has resorted to an execution petition, during proceedings whereof, the petitioner filed an objection petition claiming repayment of Rs.48,000 statedly lying with the respondent as "security". Application for temporary injunction moved therein was rejected vide an order, dated 19‑2‑1998. Matter was agitated in appeal. Appeal as also an application under section 151, C.P.C. were turned down on 28‑5‑1998 by learned District Judge, Sialkot. Hence this revision.

3. Reiterating factors, points and grounds urged in the petition particularly, with reference to paragraph No.7 thereof, learned counsel representing the petitioner has lambasted the verdict with the assertions that the matter ought to have been given due consideration and the same could validly be agitated before the executing Court. Oudth Commercial Bank Ltd., Fyazabad v. Thakurain Bind Basni Kuer and others AIR 1939 PC 80 and Chaube Mahendra Rao and others v. Lala Bishambhar Nath and others AIR 1940 All. 270 have been referred to contend that the executing‑ Court can record an adjustment entered into between the decree‑holder and the judgment‑debtor, determine legal effect and the points raised by the judgment‑debtor in objection petition. At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioner has remarked that the petitioner is prepared to deposit monthly rent as well as future rent, if due.

4. Seemingly the petitioner has employed all arrows in his arsenal during proceedings but could not succeed. In the same bid, he appears to have taken a somersault to raise the plea in another form during the execution proceedings, which, are bound to have its own course as ejectment proceedings have attained finality. Recover, of amount statedly deposited with the landlord, as security, can be claimed by having recourse to appropriate remedy available under law as observed by learned District Judge. Certainly, it cannot be set up as "ruse" to frustrate the execution proceedings, which are to flow in its natural course. Measure, adopted and chosen by the petitioner was nothing but a device to catch at a straw.

5. Be that as it may, section 115 applies to cases involving illegall assumption, non‑exercise or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. It cannot be invoked against conclusion of law or fact, which, do not, in any way, affect the jurisdiction of the Court, no matter, however, erroneous, wrong or perverse, the decision might be either on a question of fact or law, unless the decision involves a matter of jurisdiction. An erroneous conclusion of law or fact is liable to be corrected in appeal, but revision, will not be competent on such a ground, unless in arriving at such conclusion an error of law, has been committed.

6. Neither any such aspect has been put forth or highlighted nor is seemingly available so as to attract or entail provisions of section 115, C.P.C. which, thus, can neither come into play nor pressed into service. Judgment/order sought to be impeached and set at naught, is accordingly unassailable and unexceptionable as the same neither appears to suffer from any infirmity nor perversity or arbitrariness.

7. Viewed from any angle, revision petition merits outright dismissal and is hereby dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A‑290/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision petition dismissed.