P (PLP)

The provisions of section 115, Civil Procedure Code apply to jurisdiction alone, the irregular or the non‑exercise of it, of the illegal assumption of it. The section is not directed against conclusions of law or fact in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved. As regards section 33 of the British Baluchistan Courts Regulation, this section confers on the High Court certain supplementary powers of revision and these powers are attracted only in cases in which important questions of law or custom are involved. A I R 1917 P C 74, refered to. Sh. Manzoor Ahmad, for Appellant SAKER, J.C.‑

This revision petition arises out of an application made by the respondent Qureshi Muhammad Anwar to the Sub. Judge. Quetta, for determination of standard rent finder the Rent Control Regulation, 1945, in respect of a shop situate in Surajganj Bazar. Quetta. Muhammad Anwar was a tenant of the petitioner and paid Rs. 47‑6‑0, but protested that the shop was not worth more than Rs. 20 p.m. as rent. Revision of the lower Court's order reducing the rent from Rs. 47‑6‑0 to Rs. 30 a month is sought under the provisions of section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code read with section 33 of the British Baluchistan Courts Regulation, 1939. As has often been stated by me in cases of this nature the powers of revision of this Court under section 115 Pakistan anal Code are entirely' discretionary and as laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in A I R 1917 P C 74, with which I am in, full agreement, the provisions of this section apply to jurisdiction alone, the irregular or the non-exercise of it or the Illegal assumption of it. The section is not directed against conclusion of law or fact in which the question of jurisdiction Is not involved, As regards section 33, of the British Baluctistan Courts Regulation, thin section confers on this Court certain supplementary powers of revision and these powers are attracted only in cases in which important questions of Law or custom are Involved, These features are not present in too case before me. . It cannot be denied that the learned Sub‑judge had full jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's application for determination of rent under the Rent Control Regulation' and this fact has net been challenged before me by the petitioner, it was obviously up to the petitioner to satisfy this Court that the lower Court had noted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. No such plea has been made. The matter in issue is one purely of appreciation of evidence and I am satisfied that the order of the learned Sub‑Judge, of which revision is sought, is based on a fair appreciation of the evidence before hire. I do not consider that the lower Court has committed any irregularity which would fail' within the purview of section 33 of the British Baluchistan Courts Regulation, nor has it erred over the question of jurisdiction, On the contrary, I am of the opinion that substantial justice has been done. In these circumstances I am left with no alternative, but to reject this petition. A.H. petition rejected.