2026 PLP 895 (CLC)
MOHAMMAD ISHFAQ AHMED — Appellant Versus MOHAMMAD FAROOQ and 8 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2026 PLP 895 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | High Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | Syed Shahid Bahar, J |
| Parties | MOHAMMAD ISHFAQ AHMED — Appellant Versus MOHAMMAD FAROOQ and 8 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP 895 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2026 PLP 895 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: Syed Shahid Bahar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP 895 (CLC) (MOHAMMAD ISHFAQ AHMED — Appellant Versus MOHAMMAD FAROOQ and 8 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mohammad Ashraf Ayaz for Appellant.
- Ch. Tehseen Ahmed for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 104 & 115 & O.XLIII, R.1
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Art.44
Order passed by the District Court in its revisional jurisdiction, assailing of
Whether appeal or writ petition?
Held: An order passed by the District Judge in revision is not appealable and under C.P.C., the only remedy available to the appellant is a constitutional petition field under Art.44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974
Section 104, C.P.C. and O. XLIII, R.1, C.P.C. clearly listed orders against which appeals are permissible, thus, an order passed in revision is not mentioned anywhere
It is clear enough that order impugned passed in revisional jurisdiction is neither an order appealable under O.XLIII R.1, C.P.C. nor a decree or an order appealable under S.104, C.P.C.
Appeal only lies when it is expressly provided in the law
Law recognizes only such lis which is provided in the codal scheme and specifically listed the relevant law
Leaving aside the factual matrix of the lis, no appeal lies against an order passed by the District Court in revision; the only remedy provided in the law is a writ
Thus, present appeal was not competent
Appeal, being non-maintainable, was dismissed. M. Aslam v. District Judge PLD 2003 SC 344; 2004 SCMR 1110; 2019 YLR 1559 and PLD 2001 SC 49 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHAHID BAHAR, J.
The captioned appeal has been directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge Mirpur dated 29.10.2020, whereby, while setting aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Court No. II Mirpur dated 13.11.2019, application filed by the plaintiffs for seeking amendment was allowed. Order passed in revisional jurisdiction by the learned Additional District Judge is under challenge before this Court in shape of civil appeal.
2. Today, when the case was taken up for arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents voiced a preliminary objection pertaining to maintainability of the appeal. He vehemently contended that appeal is not competent against the order and it could have been assailed by filing a constitutional petition only.
3. Be that as it may, an order passed by the District Judge in revision is not appealable and under C.P.C., the only remedy available to the appellant is a constitutional petition field under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim. Constitution. Section 104, C.P.C. and Order XLIII Rule 1 clearly listed orders against which appeals are permissible, thus, an order passed in revision is not mentioned anywhere. Clear enough that order impugned passed in revisional jurisdiction is neither an order appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1, C.P.C. nor a decree or an order appealable under Section 104, C.P.C. Appeal only lies when it is expressly provided in the law. Law recognize only such lis which is provided in the codal scheme and specifically listed the relevant law. (emphasis supplied) Leaving aside the factual matrix of the lis, no appeal lies against an order passed by the learned District Judge in revision, remedy provided in the law is only the writ
1. Aftermath of the above is that the appeal is not competent, fails, therefore, dismissed. File shall be kept in archive. MQ/1/AJK(HC) Appeal dismissed. 1 M. Aslam v. District Judge PLD 2003 SC 344, 2004 SCMR 1110+2019 YLR 1559 (L)+PLD 2001 SC 49.