P L D 1987 Lahore 415 (PLP)

A suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of possession of land under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act was dismissed by the trial Court on 13‑1‑1985 and, despite the provision made in the section i itself that an appeal will not lie against a decree or order passed in I A such a suit, he carried an appeal against the trial Court's decree to the ' District Court at Gujranwala which has been heard on merits and dismissed on 5‑5‑1986 by an Additional District Judge (Mr.Ata‑ul Mohsin Lak). He has now come up to this Court in revision thereagainst.

2. The appeal below was brought by the same counsel (Syed Muhammad Aslam Tirmizy) who had himself filed the suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and it cannot be believed that he may not have known that such a decree was not open to appeal. It is regrettable that even the other counsel (Rana Muhammad Sulaman Khan), who had been retained for contesting such an appeal, had also set out to deploy his so‑called professional skill in complete ignorance of the law because he did not raise any objection about the competence of the appeal.

3. The counsel here is also sailing in the same boat and has rather gone a step further to assail the appellate decree in this Civil Revision by drafting out 8 grounds thereagainst in complete oblivision of the fact that the petitioner's appeal itself was not tenable in law.

4. It is deplorable also that a supposedly responsible officer holding the post of Additional District Judge, who is expected to apply judicial mind in hearing and deciding the matters brought to him, did not consider it necessary to apprise himself of the foremost thing requiring attention, namely, the relevant provision whereunder the litigation had originated. It is astonished as to how, without apprising himself of the relevant law, did he consider it proper that he may hear the matter?

5. For the benefit of all concerned with this litigation, it appears necessary to reproduce the relevant part of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act as under:‑ "

9. If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit ........................................ No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed."

6. Exercise of revisional power depends upon errors of jurisdiction committed by the subordinate Courts and even though the said appellate Judge has acted without jurisdiction in entertaining and deciding the appeal of the petitioner, yet, the petitioner cannot be provided any relief herein because the said appeal can neither be required to be re‑heard nor can any other illegality or error committed in the course of hearing of such an incompetent appeal be set right and, in either view, the petitioner has to fail in this proceedings. 7.???????? Before parting with this file, I feel impelled to denounce the highly improper conduct of the counsel associated with this matter because it is open to serious exception for both the moral and professional points of view inasmuch as not only that therein the C ignorance of a litigant has been exploited into accepting engagements, but it is also evident that they did not properly advert to the cases before attending the Courts for the purposes of arguing them and in thus failing to discharge their professional obligations they have failed to deliver goods to their respective clients. I wonder as to how, with such performances may any of them be able to justify the fee charged or be able to satisfy the conscience. if such an occasion may at all arise ever for him? Their legal acumen, as also of the Additional District Judge concerned, becomes highly doubtful for their having proceeded .in complete oblivision of the law. Reasons for such indiscreet conduct of the counsel are not far to seek and whereas It have required the counsel here that he should return the fee alongwith the expences paid to him by the petitioner, the cases of two counsel in the Mufassil deserve to be dealt with by the Bar Council concerned so that further recurrence of such incidents of frequent happening may be effectively stopped. Notice will, however, issue to the Additional District Judge concerned to show cause within two months from today as to why he may not be made personally liable to pay all the costs which may D have been incurred by the parties in moving his Court and contesting the untenable appeal wherein he had called upon the opposite party to enter appearance. Learned District Judge Gujranwala will have his explanation forwarded to this Court for suitable action. ???

8. This Civil Revision being only frivolous, is accordingly dismissed in limine. M . B . A . / H‑27 / L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.