2005 PLP 1674 (YLR)

This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 39-10-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 3-10-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan was dismissed holding that an appeal was competent against the impugned judgment.

2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are .that on 21-1-2000 respondent No.3 Mst. Nasreen Anwar filed a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for the recovery of possession of the suit property which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan vide his judgment dated 3-10-2003. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner, filed an appeal which was dismissed being incompetent by the learned. Additional District Judge, Multan, vide his order dated 16-10-2003. On 24-12- 2003, the petitioner filed a revision petition against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 3-10- 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge,' Multan' vide his judgment dated 30-10-2004 where it was held that against the judgment dated 3-10-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan, an appeal was competent to be filed which had already been dismissed. Hence this writ petition. 2-A. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is crystal clear from the provisions of section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in suit instituted under this section nor shall review of any such order or decree be allowed, thus the provision of section 115, C.P.C. would apply and this jurisdiction was vested in the learned Additional District Judge, Multan but he has acted otherwise without any reason. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Late Mst. Majeedan through Legal Heirs and another v. Late Muhammad Naseem through Legal Heirs and another 2001 SCMR

345. Further contends that it was not lawful for the learned Additional District Judge, Multan to beat hot and cold at the same time as once he had decided that appeal was incompetent and at the same time it was without jurisdiction to hold that the revision was also incompetent.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed that writ petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders.

5. The only question in this petition is whether appeal or revision is competent before the learned Additional District Judge in such like cases. For the said purpose, it is necessary to reproduce subsection (2) of section 115, C.P.C.: "The District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by subsection (1) in respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate to such District Court in which no appeal lies and the amount or value of the subject matter whereof does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court" Perusal of the said section reveals that the learned Additional District Judge has the power to revise the order passed by the learned Civil Judge. In this behalf reliance is placed on Late Mst. Majeedan through Legal Heirs and another v. Late Muhammad Naseem through Legal Heirs and another 2001 SCMR 345, wherein it is held that against a decree under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 the remedy is by way of revision and the same is not excluded altogether when acted otherwise.

6. Relying upon subsection (2) of section 115, C.P.C. and also the authority cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that against the judgment dated 3-10-2003 passed by; the learned Civil Judge, Multan, a revision petition was competent before the learned Additional District Judge, Multan. Therefore, this writ petition is accepted and the case is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge, Multan who is directed to decide the revision petition, filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 3-10-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan, on merits leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./G-119/L Petition accepted.