1997 PLP 2025 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S.115‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑High Court while hearing revision would exercise its revisional/supervisory jurisdiction which was primarily meant for correcting jurisdictional error committed by Courts below‑‑‑On mere technicalities, exercise of revisional jurisdiction could not be declined. Muhammad Anwar Tariq for Applicant. Umer Farooq Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th December, 1995. Through this Revision Order dated 8‑9‑1992 passed by the learned IXth Civil Judge, Karachi, East Kausar Hussain Bukhari which was maintained by the learned VIIth Additional District Judge, Karachi on 16‑9‑1992 have been challenged by the applicant. The brief facts are that the applicant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent. The trial Court issued pre‑admission notice and thereafter passed the order under Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. for return of the plaint on the ground that the land/premises in suit were owned by the Government as such the Estate Officer was a necessary party and after impleading the Estate Officer the suit may be filed in the Court having jurisdiction. The appellant preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.51/1992 but without success. The order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge reads as under: "Admittedly both the plaintiff and defendant are occupying the Government land/quarter owned by Estate Office, Government of Pakistan, and the dispute is over the encroached premises between the parties. The plaintiff has not disclosed in his plaint that how he became the licensee of Government Allottee, therefore, I have come to the conclusion that land/premises in suit is belonged to Government, but the plaintiff has not made the party to. Estate Office, which is necessary party in this suit, therefore, I order that plaint be returned to the plaintiff for making the Estate Office as party and thereafter plaint be filed in the Court having jurisdiction, if he so advised. " I have heard Mr. Muhammad Anwar Tariq, learned counsel of the applicant and Mr. Umer Farooq Khan, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. The plaint can be returned at any stage of the suit under Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. for presentation to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. The learned Senior Civil Judge instead of following the provisions contained in Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. ordered that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff/applicant for making the Estate Officer as party and thereafter it may be filed in the Court .having jurisdiction. From a plain reading of the impugned order it is clear that the learned Senior Civil Judge travelled beyond the scope of the suit as filed by the plaintiff and based his conclusion on surmises and conjecture. The applicant had filed suit for permanent injunction against the respondent restraining him from illegally dispossessing the applicant from the premises i.e. his shop and other adjacent premises on the western side near motor garage and adjacent to the premises which in occupation of the respondent behind Jahangir Road Quarters, Karachi without due process of law. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, supported the impugned order by submitting that there are two concurrent findings of the subordinate Courts which cannot be challenged in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no force in this submission. This Court while hearing the revision application exercises its supervisory jurisdiction which is primarily meant for correcting the jurisdictional error committed by the subordinate Courts. Even otherwise on mere technicalities exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by this Court cannot be declined. The impugned orders are patently illegal. It was not proper for the learned Senior Civil Judge to direct the applicant to implead the Estate Officer, Government of Pakistan and then file the suit in the Court having jurisdiction. It is not the function of a Court to advise a party as to the course of action which it should take. He should have only considered the jurisdictional aspect whether he had the jurisdiction to entertain the plaint or not. Thus in my opinion both the Courts below have not exercised the jurisdiction vested in them. Accordingly this revision is allowed and both the impugned orders are set aside. It is ordered that the plaint shall be deemed to be pending before the trial Court for disposal/proceedings according to law. A.A./M‑88/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.