2017 PLP 1379 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD HUMAYON KHAN, J.

This civil revision application under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the Order dated 21.04.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur, in First Class Suit No. 132 of 2014, whereby, the learned Senior Civil Judge, dismissed the applicant's review application under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151, C.P.C.

2. Upon filing of this revision application, the office raised an objection that how this civil revision application against the Order of the learned Senior Civil Judge is maintainable before the High Court when law provides that it should have been filed before the learned District Judge.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.

4. The provisions of Section 115, C.P.C. were amended by Ordinance, XII of 1972, whereby, Subsections (2), (3) and (4) were added to Section 115, C.P.C. It is necessary to reproduce such subsections as under:- "(2) The District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by subsection (1) in respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate to such District Court in which no appeal lies and the amount or value of the subject-matter whereof does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court. (3) If any application under subsection (1) in respect of a case within the competence of the District Court has been made either to the High Court or the District Court, no further such application shall be made to either of them. (4) No proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under subsection (2) by the District Court."

5. It is apparent from the above-referred provisions of law that the District Court is empowered to entertain a revision application which the High Court under Subsection (1) of Section 115, C.P.C. is competent to entertain. If Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 115, C.P.C. read together it shows that there is concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and District Court to entertain revision application. However, the Courts have to see that what was the intention of the legislature to add Subsection (2) to Section 115, C.P.C. The intention of the legislature is apparent that to save the valuable time of the Courts, revision applications against the Orders or Judgments of Senior Civil Judge or Civil Judge should be filed before the District Judge and revision applications against the Orders or Judgments of District Judge or Additional District Judge should be filed before the High Court.

6. At this stage, it is also necessary to examine the provisions of Section 15, C.P.C., which provides that:-- "Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it." In view of this provision of law also, the instant revision application should have been in all propriety filed before the District Judge.

7. It is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that it is the duty of the Courts to give effect to legal provisions but not to make them ineffective. The Courts of law can never be a party to putting legal provisions to disuse or discard the same but it is one of the obligations of every Court to give effect to each and every provisions of each and every law. Reliance can be placed upon the case of Mst. Banori v. Jilani through Legal Heirs and others (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 1186).

8. Since, I have come to the conclusion that the instant revision application was to be filed before the learned District Judge, it is beyond my jurisdiction to touch the merits of the matter.

9. In view of the above discussion, Memorandum of this revision application along with all enclosures is, therefore, returned to the applicant for presentation before the learned District Judge, Sukkur, which is the proper Court in view of Subsection (2) of Section 115, C.P.C. The applicant will however, be at liberty to file along with this application certified copies of the documents which are necessary to accompany such application according to law. The office shall endorse certificate on the revision application similar to that which is provided under Order VII, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. at the time of returning the revision application. ZC/A-36/Sindh Revision returned.