1983 PLP 1759 (CLC)

Shah Jamil A14M for Respondents. Date of hearing : 18th April, 1983. Applicant above‑named, being aggrieved by judgment dated 30th December, 1981 of the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi by which applicants Civil Appeal No. 266/76 was dismissed and she judg ment and decree dated 12th May, 1976 passed in Suit No. 206/67 was maintained, has preferred the above petition on the facts and grounds mentioned in the memo of above petition. The learned Advocate for the applicant in support of the above petition submitted, that the learned Appellate Court did not apply its mind to all the issues involved in the suit in question, but disposed of the said appeal on the basis of issues Nos. 4 and 12, without considering the other issues and, therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi in Civil Appeal No. 266/77 is liable to be set aside and appeal remanded back to the learned Appellate Court for considering the remaining issues as well. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted, that tie learned Appellate Court having confirmed the finding of the learned trial Court in respect of issues Nos. 4 and 12, for the cogent reasons, it was not necessary for the appellate Court to give further detailed findings in respect of remaining issues, as said remaining issues arise out of these main two issues. In addition to this the learned Advocate for the respondent submitted. that the learned 1st Appellate Court in its impugned judgment has mentioned, that the other issues have also been decided correctly by the learned trial Court and consequently has applied its mind to these issues as well and as such contentions of the learned Advocate for the applicant are not at all warranted. The learned Advocate for the respondent further submitted that the scope of revision under section 115, C. P. C. is very limited and since the learned Advocate for the applicant has been unable to point out any illegality and/or material irregularity in the impugned judgment of the Ist Appellate Court, the finding of facts given by both the learned lower Courts cannot be interfered with in the above petition. In support of this contention the learned Advocate for the respondents relied upon cases reported in P L D 1970 S C 139 and 288 and P L D 1983 S C

53. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the R & P of the learned trial Court as well as both the impugned judgments and the cases cited by the learned Advocate for the respondents before me. I find that the learned trial Court after due appraisal of the evidence on record, for cogent reasons decided all the issues and decreed respondents' suit as prayed. 1 also find that the learned Appellate Court, after due consideration of the evidence brought before the learned trial Court and for the cogent reasons dismissed the applicant's Civil Appeal No. 266/76. In my opinion the learned Advocate for the applicant was unable to point out any illegality and/or material irregularity in both the impugned judgments, so as to warrant interference under section 115,C.P.C. I find eat force in the contentions urged before me by the learned Advocate for the respondents that revisional powers under section 115, C. P. C. are primarily intended for correcting the errors made by subordi nate Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction and/or erroneous decision of fact is ordinarily not revisable, except when the decision is based on no evidence and/or inadmissible evidence or is so perverse as to result in grave injustice. In the present case, I do not find any such defect in both the learned lower Courts judgments and as such in my opinion no interference is called for by this petition in respect of both the learned lower Courts judgments. Therefore, I find no merits in the above petition, which is consequently dismissed with costs. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.