1979 PLP 688 (CLC)

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- S. 115-Revision-Jurisdiction-Forum deciding to have jurisdiction and proceeding to examine case on merits-Whether case decided --(Quaere). ;Revision (civil)-Jurisdiction]. Mian Mohjiuddin Ahmad for Petitioner. This is a revision petition under section 115, C. P. C., calling in question order dated 28-1-1979 passed by learned Guardian Judge whereby he decided preliminary issue with regard to territoral jurisdiction and after overruling the petitioner's objection in this behalf, proceeded to hear the case on merits.

2. Last time, the case was adjourned to examine the question "whether the order (impugned) would amount to case decided". It is interesting to note that after raising the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction and getting an issue framed thereon, the petitioner did not assist the Court in adducing evidence in rebuttal of the evidence examined from the respondent's side. The learned Judge, on account of the attitude of the petitioner, had to proceed against her e: parte. However, her learned counsel, as noted above, without adducing any evidence, appeared at the time of arguments and canvassed the proposition that the evidence procured from the respondent's side was not creditable. The learned Guardian Judge, after considering the arguments from the petitioner's side and noting the evidence led from the respondent's side, cane to the conclusion that "the minor was originally in the custody of her father petitioner alongwith the respondent herself and later on it was removed to Lahore by the respondent, where she has settled with her parents and has ultimately obtained the ax parte decree for the dissolution of her marriage." Proceeding on that finding of fact, learned Judge held that the Court at Faisalabad had jurisdiction to try the petition under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act.

3. Learned counsel has, in answer to the question posed in my order dated 22-4-1979, argued that because there is misreading of evidence, there fore, the impugned order would amount to 'case decided' and further that on account of this reason, this Court should interfere in its revisional jurisdiction.

4. Keeping in view the mounting backlog of pendency in almost all the Courts, the recent trend of authority is that fragmentary decisions at higher forums, when the main proceedings remain pending at lower forums, are most inconvenient because they tend to delay the administration of justice. Even where corrective jurisdiction exists at interlocutory stage, it is felt that unless the whole gamut of dispute can be disposed of, inter locutory orders and intermediary proceedings should not be interfered with unless it becomes absolutely unavoidable. And although on the question of jurisdiction when a forum decides that it has no jurisdiction, it can be safely said that the entire case is decided, at least, for one patty, but if the forum decides that it has the jurisdiction and proceeds to examine the case on merits, it cannot be said that the case or any part thereof has been finally decided simply because the question of jurisdiction goes to the root of the case. Thus, although a stage has reached to examine in more detail whether the latter type of decision would be treated as 'case decided' for the purpose of entertaining a revision petition under section 115, C. P. C., in the circum stances of the present case, I do not want to examine this question any further.1 One reason being that enough assistance has not been rendered.

5. As observed earlier, even if a revision petition is competent, in the circumstances I do not consider it a fit case for interference through revisional jurisdiction at this stage. The evidence led from the respondent's side and the finding rendered by the learned trial Court not only relate to the question of jurisdiction but also partly deal with the merits of the case. Any final decision in revisional jurisdiction on factual questions relating to territorial jurisdiction would have direct bearing on the merits of the case of each party for the custody of minor. On the other hand, if the learned Guardian Judge, who passed the impugned order in January 1979 (and by now the proceedings might have already reached the final stages), decides the respondent's application for custody one way or the other, the said decision as also the decision on the question of jurisdiction rendered through the impugned order could be made subject of appeal.

6. After carefully considering all the aspects of the case, I do not consider it a fit case for interference at this stage in discretionary revisional jurisdiction of this Court, even if it were to be held that a revision is competent. The revision petition accordingly is dismissed to limine. Petition dismissed.