2014 PLP 1422 (YLR)
ABDUL HAFEEZ ARAIN — Applicant Versus MUREED HUSSAIN and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 1422 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | Farooq Ali Channa, J |
| Parties | ABDUL HAFEEZ ARAIN — Applicant Versus MUREED HUSSAIN and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 1422 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 1422 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Farooq Ali Channa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 1422 (YLR) (ABDUL HAFEEZ ARAIN — Applicant Versus MUREED HUSSAIN and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pirbhulal U. Goklani for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115
Revision was filed after more than 90 days from the order of Appellate Court and same was time-barred
Revision was dismissed being time-barred and not maintainable.
S. 115
Revisional jurisdiction of High Court
Revisional jurisdiction of High Court could only be exercised if subordinate court had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Rana Muhammad Siddique for Applicant. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Addl. A.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
FAROOQ ALI CHANNA, J.
The applicant Abdul Hafeez Arain has filed this civil revision application against the order dated 8-12-2012 passed by learned Ist. Additional District Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad (hereinafter referred to as Appellate Court) in Civil Appeal No.79 of 2012, whereby the Appellate Court disposed of the aforesaid civil appeal as withdrawn on the statement filed by the applicant himself.
2. Since the impugned order was passed on the request of the applicant, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant was asked to satisfy this court, as to how the civil revision application is maintainable against such order, the learned counsel inspite of replying the query properly referred to certain terms and conditions of the settlement which had taken place between the applicant and the private respondents on the intervention of Nekmards of the locality. Learned counsel further contended that the private respondents did not honour the terms and conditions and assurance given to the applicant in faisla held before filing the statement for withdrawal of the appeal, therefore, the decision taken in faisla for withdrawal of appeal was not binding upon the applicant, he requested that the impugned order dated 8-12-2012 may be recalled and the Appellate Court may be directed to decide the appeal on merits.
3. The submissions made by the learned counsel for applicant are groundless for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 C.P.C., which can only be exercised if the subordinate Court has exercised (a) a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or (b) failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and (c) acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any of above three conditions in the impugned order, hence this civil revision application is not maintainable.
4. Besides above, the Appellate Court has passed the impugned order on 8-12-2012 and the applicant has filed this civil revision application after the lapse of more than 90 days period provided in the statute for filing the revision application, as such, the same is also time-barred.
5. For the above reasons, this civil revision being not maintainable and also being time barred is dismissed with no order as to cost. AG/A-141/Sindh Revision dismissed.