2018 PLP 49 (CLCN)

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.

Through this civil revision the petitioner has challenged the judgment/order dated 26.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Talagang, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants has been decided. The concluding Para 5 of the judgment/order is reproduced as follows:- "I have perused the impugned order as well as record available on the file with able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties very carefully. Record has been perused from root and branches. Impugned order has also been perused minutely. The learned trial court is directed to decide the application for removal of hurdle or hindrance in the passage/Pagdandi filed by plaintiff Noor Muhammad afresh keeping in view the order dated 04.06.2013 passed by the learned predecessor of this court as well as keeping in view the report of local commission filed before the learned trial court on 10.07.2014 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties within the period of one month positively. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 05.09.2015. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court for information. The file of this court be consigned to the record room."

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering into the passage leading towards the property of plaintiff. Along with the plaint an application for temporary injunction was filed, which was dismissed by the learned trial court. An appeal was preferred before the learned first appellate court, which was accepted. Thereafter an application was moved by the petitioner/plaintiff that by throwing bushes etc the defendants have interrupted the passage and have closed the same. The application was accepted by the learned trial court. The defendants/respondents filed an appeal against the order of acceptance of application dated 29.06.2015, which has been accepted vide judgment-order dated 26.08.2015 by the learned Additional District Judge. Hence, this civil revision.

3. At the very outset learned counsel for the respondents states that it is not a "case decided", therefore, in the light of judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "1994 SCMR 1991 (Mian Muhammad Luqman and 5 others v. Farida Khanam and another)" the revision petition is not competent.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the record minutely with their able assistance.

5. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is correct. When the learned Additional District Judge through the impugned judgment/order has directed the learned trial court to decide the application afresh after hearing the parties and keeping in view the previous order passed by the learned Additional District Judge as well as the report of local commission, therefore, it is not a case decided, and as such the instant revision petition is incompetent. Even the learned trial court was directed to decide the application within one month back on 26.08.2015. The petitioner has without any justifiable reasons filed this civil revision and it is not competent being filed against the order which is not a case decided. In this view of the matter, this civil revision stands dismissed. HBT/N-10/L Petition dismissed.