2019 PLP 123 (YLR)
MAQBOOL HUSSAIN AWAN — Petitioner Versus ZAIN MALIK — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 PLP 123 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Amin-ud-Din Khan, J |
| Parties | MAQBOOL HUSSAIN AWAN — Petitioner Versus ZAIN MALIK — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 123 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 123 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Amin-ud-Din Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 123 (YLR) (MAQBOOL HUSSAIN AWAN — Petitioner Versus ZAIN MALIK — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Majeed-III for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115
Second revision petition
Petitioner filed revision under S.115, C.P.C. against the acceptance of application under O. IX, R. 13, C.P.C. by the Trial Court
Petitioner, along with revision petition, filed an application for stay of proceedings of Trial Court as well as grant of injunction against the alienation of suit property and injunction with regard to interference in possession of petitioner, which was declined
Second revision petition under S.115, C.P.C. was not competent
Order passed under S.115, C.P.C. by the revisional court was not further challengeable through a revision petition before High Court. Anjum Chemical Storage (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Chenab Limited Nishatabad and others 2016 SCMR 177 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.
Through this civil revision the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.09.2018 passed by the learned revisional Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, whereby at the time of entertaining the revision petition filed by the petitioner request for stay of proceedings before the learned trial Court was turned down.
2. Learned counsel argues that prayer was that injunctive order be granted with regard to further alienation of suit property and interference into the possession of petitioner as well as stay of proceedings before the learned trial court.
3. On query of the Court qua maintainability of second revision against the order passed by the learned revisional Court learned counsel relies upon "Anjum Chemical Storage (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Chenab Limited Nishatabad and others" (2016 SCMR 177).
4. I have gone through the case law referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Through the judgment referred supra the Apex Court has held that along with the appeal an application under Order XLI, Rule 5 of the C.P.C. was filed before the learned appellate court, which was refused, therefore, it is a "case decided" and revision there against under section 115 of the C.P.C. was competent. This judgment is absolutely not applicable to the facts of instant case, as the question involved in this petition is not of a "case decided", rather the question is maintainability of second revision after the order passed by the learned revisional Court. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned revisional Court under section 115 of the C.P.C. against the acceptance of an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. moved by the respondents-defendants and along with revision petition an application for stay of proceedings of learned trial court as well as grant of injunction against the alienation of suit property by the respondents and injunction with regard to interference into the possession of petitioner was moved, which was declined, hence, this revision petition under section 115 of the C.P.C. I am clear in my mind that second revision petition is not competent. An order passed under section 115 of the C.P.C. by the revisional Court is not further challengeable through a revision petition filed under section 115, C.P.C. before this Court. In these circumstances, the instant civil revision being not competent stands dismissed in limine. SA/M-141/L Revision dismissed.