1994 PLP 903 (MLD)
KHALIL AHMED and another — Applicants Versus Syed HASSAN SHAH BUKHARI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 903 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHALIL AHMED and another — Applicants Versus Syed HASSAN SHAH BUKHARI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 903 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 903 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 903 (MLD) (KHALIL AHMED and another — Applicants Versus Syed HASSAN SHAH BUKHARI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Karachi Building Control Authority v. Muhammad Arif Qureshi, Advocate 1992 CLC 1904 and Ghulam Rasool v. Ahsan Ali RA. No. 72 of 1992 ref.
- Arif Hussain for Respondent No.1
- This Revision Application has been preferred against the orders passed by the Court of VIIIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (South) in Suit No. 757 of 1992 on an application under section 151, C.P.C. The value of the suit before the lower Court is shown to be Rs.24,000 only thus in normal course under-the provisions of Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, any order passed in the suit would be appealable before the District Court. As regards the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. pertaining to Revision Applications, it may be observed that by virtue of amendments brought to this Section vide Ordinance XII of 1972, subsection (2) was added to section 115, C.P.C. Under subsection (2) it was provided that the District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by subsection (1) of the same section. Thus the District Court was also invested with the concurrent jurisdiction to hear the Revision Application against the orders passed by the subordinate Courts in those cases from where the amount and value of the subject-matter does not exceed the limit of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court, subsection (3) and subsection (4) of section 115, C.P.C. further provide that no second Revision Application would be preferred in case one Revision Application has been decided by the District Court. A reference to section 15, C.P.C. would show that the principle embodied therein is that where more than one Court have concurrent jurisdiction, the action/proceedings should be instituted in the Court of lowest grade. In these circumstances the present Revision Application should have been instituted before the District Court. Reliance may be placed on the case of Karachi Building Control Authority v. Muhammad Arif Qureshi Advocate 1992 CLC 1904 and the case of Ghulam Rasool v. Ahsan Ali R.A. No. 72 of 1992 in which order was passed on 24-6-1992.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 15 & 115
West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 18-- Revision before High Court against order of Trial Court
Competency-- Value of suit filed before Trial Court was Rs.24,000 only, but revision against order of Trial Court was filed directly before High Court
In normal course under provisions of West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 any order passed in suit would be appealable before District Court
Subsection (2) of S.115, C.P.C. had also provided that District Court could exercise revisional powers conferred on High Court by subsection (1) of section 115, C.P.C: = District Court, in such circumstances, was also invested with concurrent jurisdiction to hear revision applications against orders passed by Trial Court
Principle embodied in S.15, C.P.C. being that where more than one Court had concurrent jurisdiction/proceedings should be instituted in Court of lowest grade, revision application should have been instituted before District Court instead of High Court
Memorandum of revision application was returned to applicant to be filed before District Court.
Judgment & Decree
This Revision Application has been preferred against the orders passed by the Court of VIIIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (South) in Suit No. 757 of 1992 on an application under section 151, C.P.C. The value of the suit before the lower Court is shown to be Rs.24,000 only thus in normal course under-the provisions of Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, any order passed in the suit would be appealable before the District Court. As regards the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. pertaining to Revision Applications, it may be observed that by virtue of amendments brought to this Section vide Ordinance XII of 1972, subsection (2) was added to section 115, C.P.C. Under subsection (2) it was provided that the District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by subsection (1) of the same section. Thus the District Court was also invested with the concurrent jurisdiction to hear the Revision Application against the orders passed by the subordinate Courts in those cases from where the amount and value of the subject-matter does not exceed the limit of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court, subsection (3) and subsection (4) of section 115, C.P.C. further provide that no second Revision Application would be preferred in case one Revision Application has been decided by the District Court. A reference to section 15, C.P.C. would show that the principle embodied therein is that where more than one Court have concurrent jurisdiction, the action/proceedings should be instituted in the Court of lowest grade. In these circumstances the present Revision Application should have been instituted before the District Court. Reliance may be placed on the case of Karachi Building Control Authority v. Muhammad Arif Qureshi Advocate 1992 CLC 1904 and the case of Ghulam Rasool v. Ahsan Ali R.A. No. 72 of 1992 in which order was passed on 24-6-1992. Accordingly it is ordered that memorandum of the Revision Application alongwith all enclosures be returned to the learned counsel for the appellants for presentation before the competent Court as observed above. The office will prepare and issue such Certificate. H.B.T./K-348/K. Order accordingly.