1992 PLP 1904 (CLC)

Syed Abbas Zia for Applicant. Respondent in person. This revision application is directed against the order of VIIlth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South dated 27‑8‑1988, whereby he allowed the application unuer order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. filed by the Respondent and dismissed the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. filed by the appellant

2. Plot of land bearing No.70‑A, Ghulshan‑e‑Faisal Society, Bath Island, Karachi is owned by the respondent. He constructed a bungalow over the said plot according to building plan approved by the appellant. In, addition to the bungalow in question, the appellant also raised a room adjacent to Plot No.A‑12, which is in occupation of one Rena Brouche. On completion of the said bungalow and room, the respondent submitted completion plan which was approved by the appellant. The said plan was taken away from the bungalow of the respondent at the instance of the appellant and the said Rena Brouche, which resulted m litigation in shape of Suit No.965/1987 in the Court of XIVth Civil Judge, Karachi South for cancellation of the said Completion Certificate and demolition of the room. The appellant served notice of demolition on the respondent and also demolished a part of the construction illegally and unlawfully. He therefore, filed a suit for declaration that the notice is illegal, mala fide and without lawful authority and injunction restraining the appellant, from demolishing the same and a mandatory injunction directing him to return the original Completion Certificate.

3. Mr. Mohammad Arif Qureshi, respondent and Advocate has raised a preliminary objection to this revision application on the maintainability of this R.A. He has submitted that the revision application should have been filed before the District Court. In support of his contention he has placed reliance in a recent ruling in the case of Muhammad Sharif v. Malik Abdur Razzaq reported in 1991 MLD 1867. He has also contended that the revision application is not accompanied by certified copies of all the relevant documents required, under the law.

4. Mr. Syed Abbas Zia, learned counsel for the applicant, could not controvert this objection. All that he submitted is that this Court has also got concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the revision application.

5. A perusal of the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. as amended by Ordinance XII of 1972 shows that the District Court has also jurisdiction to entertain the revision application. Subsections (2) and (3) of section 115 of the Ordinance reads 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 t~ 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 Hid Court or the District Court, no further such application shall be mad to either of them." These provisions empower the District Court to entertain a revision application which the High Court under subsection (1) thereof is competent to entertain. No doubt concurrent jurisdiction is given to the High Court as we as the District Court in the matter of entertaining revision applications, but view of the principle embodied in section 15, C.P.C. which provides that a suit shall be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try the same, the revision application in this case should also have been in all propriety file before District Court. Admittedly the valuation of the suit was also not above the pecuniary limit prescribed for filing an appeal in the District Court an therefore, this revision application all the more ought to have been filed in the District Court. A departure from the rule could have been claimed by the applicant if he had shown any legal exigency and given very strong reason therefor. No such legal exigency or strong reasons have been shown in the revision application." The revision application is, therefore, returned for presentation to the proper Court. The applicant will, however, be at liberty to file alongwith 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, sub‑rule (2), C.P.C at the time of returning the revision application. AA./K‑281/K ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly