2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)

S. 115

Revision

Scope

Revision would lie against the decision or order of subordinate court in which no appeal had been provided

High Court had very limited scope of revisional jurisdiction

Revision was competent only in non-appealable orders or decisions and was not competent where appeal had been provided under the law

Revisional jurisdiction did not confer any substantive right, and right to move in revision was merely a privilege granted to a party

Copies of pleadings etc. were a mandatory requirement to be filed along with revision petition

Petitioners had not filed copies of plaint, appeal, judgments and decrees passed in the suit and appeal

Revision was liable to be dismissed on such ground

Both the courts below had elaborately and comprehensively discussed each and every point and had assigned cogent and sound reasons for their findings

No misreading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the findings of both the courts below

Petitioners, in the present case, had remedy of moving second appeal against the decree passed in appeal but instead of availing the said remedy they had chosen to prefer revision which was not maintainable

Revision was dismissed in limine. [Paras. 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 of the judgment] 2014 YLR 602; 1992 CLC 1022; 2012 YLR 218; 1993 MLD 2312; 1996 SCMR 669; 2000 CLC 1832; 2007 MLD 1110; 2007 MLD 1647 and 2013 MLD 1845 ref. 2001 SCMR 798; PLD 1994 SC 291; PLD 1970 SC 506; PLD 1995 SC 472 and Banori (Mst.) v. Jilani PLD 2010 SC 1186 rel.

S. 115

Revision, filing of

Requirement

Copies of pleadings etc. were required to be filed along with revision petition. [Para. 8 of the judgment] Banori (Mst.) v. Jilani PLD 2010 SC 1186 rel.

S. 115

Revisional jurisdiction of High Court

Scope

High Court had very limited scope of revisional jurisdiction

Revisional jurisdiction could be exercised only in such cases where subordinate court had exceeded its jurisdiction or had declined to exercise jurisdiction or had acted in exercise of its jurisdiction in a manner contrary to law or in a manner not warranted by law. [Para. 8 of the judgment] 2001 SCMR 798 rel. Jaffar Ali Shah for Applicants. ORDER AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.

Through this Civil Revision Application, the applicants viz. legal heirs of deceased Sajjan son of Nabi Bux and Ali Nawaz son of Nabi Bux have challenged the concurrent findings given in Judgment dated 23.06.2011 and Decree dated 27.06.2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khairpur in Suit No.52/2010 filed by the respondent whereby he decreed the suit and the Judgment dated 29.02.2012 and decree dated 01.03.2012 passed by learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Khairpur in Civil Appeal No.62/2011 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the applicants. Precisely, the facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed Suit No.52/2010 stating therein that agricultural land viz. 30 ghuntas from S.No.1.14, situated in Deh Gujo, Taluka and District Khairpur originally belonged to one Hyder Bux, since deceased, who sold the same to the respondent through registered sale-deed for consideration of Rs.15,000/- and delivered its possession to him. It is further averred that about 9 years back Applicant No.1 forcibly occupied the suit land of the respondent, however before the respondent/ plaintiff could have filed suit for restoration of possession of suit land, the entire area of 34 ghuntas came into litigation in Suit No.13/2001 wherein deceased Hyder Bux and the respondent were also parties.. The said suit was filed on the basis of right of pre-emption, however the same was dismissed in the year 2009 against which Appeal No.145/2009 was filed by applicant No.1 which was also dismissed vide Judgment dated 19.02.2010 and Decree dated 25.02.2010. The applicants contested Suit No.152/2010 filed by the respondent wherein, while taking legal objection regarding non-maintainability of the suit, they took the plea that deceased Hyder Bux had sold out 30 ghuntas of land to the plaintiff/respondent, whereas 0-4 ghuntas belonged to the deceased defendants which subsequently devolved upon their legal heirs viz. the present applicants by way of inheritance. On the issues framed by the trial court, the plaintiff/respondent in support of his case examined his attorney namely Riaz Ahmed and witnesses namely Haresh Kumar and Haji Mohammad, whereas the applicant did not lead any evidence, as such the suit was decreed and the appeal preferred by the applicants was dismissed, as stated above, hence this Civil Revision. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the judgments passed by the two courts below are bad in law and contrary to the facts of the case. He submitted that the two courts erred in law and on facts while passing the impugned judgments. He further contended that the impugned orders have been passed in a hasty and mechanical manner without appreciating the facts on record and the relevant law. He further contended that the two courts below have not applied judicial mind to the pleadings of the parties and the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants. According to him, the superior courts have always appreciated the disposal on merits and not on technicalities and that the applicants are ready and willing to lead their evidence. He also contended that the impugned judgments suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence. He prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgments passed by the two courts below. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the cases reported in 2014 YLR 602, 1992 CLC 1022, 2012 YLR 218, 1993 MLD 2312, 1996 SCMR 669, 2000 CLC 1832, 2007 MLD 1110, 2007 MLD 1647 and 2013 MLD 1845. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the revision application against the concurrent findings is not maintainable. According to him, the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court only in those cases where subordinate court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has declined to exercise jurisdiction or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity and all the three ingredients lack in the instant case. He further contended that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are in accordance with the law and norms of justice. He further submitted that the two courts while delivering the judgments have assigned discussed each every point and have assigned cogent reasons for the findings given in the impugned judgments. He prayed for maintaining. the impugned orders and dismissal of the revision application. "It is now firmly settled law that findings of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court based on appraisal of evidence and raising of inferences in its discretion could not be interfered with under section 115, C.P.C. merely because a different view was also possible to be taken, therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court suffers from want of jurisdiction." In another case reported in PLD 1994 SC 291, the honourable Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact of two courts below could not be disturbed by High Court either in second appeal or in revisional jurisdiction unless Courts below while recording finding of fact had either misread the evidence or had ignored any material piece of evidence on record or the same was perverse

Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction was narrower, it could only interfere with the order of subordinate Court on ground that Court below had assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law or that Court below had acted with material irregularity affecting its jurisdiction in the case and the High Court under revisional jurisdiction can only correct jurisdictional errors of Courts below

Fact that High Court while reappraising evidence on record reached a conclusion different from that arrived at by two Courts below, such fact could never be a ground justifying interference with a finding of fact muchless a concurrent finding of fact recorded by Courts below on the basis of evidence produced before them. It is also well settled that the revision lies to this court against the decision or order of subordinate court in which no appeal lies. Revision is competent only in non-appealable orders or decisions, however where appeal has been provided under the law, revision is not competent. From bare of the provisions of section 115, C.P.C., it reveals that the said provision of law specifically states that revision will lie to the High Court against the decision or order of the subordinate court in which no appeal lies. Only in non-appealable orders or decisions, revision is competent but where appeal has been provided under the law, revision will not be competent. In this context reference may be made to the decisions reported in PLD 1970 SC 506 and PLD 1995 SC 472 wherein the apex court has held that decree or order passed by the trial court is appealable to High Court, revision without availing of remedy by way of such appeal was not competent. Revisional jurisdiction of this court under section 115, C.P.C. does not confer any substantive right and the right to move in revision is merely a privilege granted to a party. In the instant case the applicants had the remedy of moving Ilnd Appeal under section 100, C.P.C. against the decree passed in appeal by the appellate court subordinate court to this Court but instead of availing the said remedy, he has chosen to prefer revision application which, in such circumstances, is not maintainable. Yet there is another legal point on which the revision could be held to be not maintainable under section 115, C.P.C., it is mandatory requirement that copies of the pleadings etc. should be filed along with the Revision Application. From the perusal of the record it reveals that the applicants have not filed copies of the plaint of Civil Suit No.13/2001, Appeal No.145/2009 and the judgments and decrees passed in the said suit and appeal, which also pertain to the property in question, although the same were exhibited in Suit No.52/2010 filed by the respondent. The honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as Banori (Mst.) v. Jilani (PLD 2010 SC 1186) while dealing with in a very elaborate manner the revisional jurisdiction, set-forth guidelines for the subordinate courts for exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In the said judgment, inter alia, it has been held : that in future, no applications filed under section 115, C.P.C. are entertained unless accompanied by copies of the commanded documents and record: In view of dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, it can safely be held that this Revision Application is liable to be dismissed on this ground too. So far as merits of the case are concerned, the both the courts below have has very elaborately and comprehensively discussed each and every point and have assigned cogent and sound reasons for their findings, as such there seems to be no misreading or non reading of the evidence adduced before the trial court by the two courts below. In view of above discussion, the Revision Application merits dismissal being not maintainable. Accordingly, instant revision application is dismissed in limine. ZC/S-111/Sindh Revision dismissed.