IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Civil Revision Application No. S-26 of 2017

Mst. Hajran

Versus

Anjum alias Amjad

and Others

For the Applicant:                            Mr. Qurban Ali N. Agro, Advocate.

Date of Hearing:                              03.09.2018

Date of Announcement:                 03.09.2018

O R D E R

Agha Faisal, J. This application has been preferred assailing the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Mehar dated 05.05.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2017 (“Impugned Judgment”). Through the Impugned Judgment, the learned Additional District Judge had upheld the order dated 12.04.2017 passed in FC Suit No. 34 of 2015 by the Senior Civil Judge, Mehar (“Impugned Order”), whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C filed by a defendant in the said proceedings was allowed. The Impugned Judgment upheld the Impugned Order and hence present revision application was instituted.

2.       Mr. Qurban Ali N. Agro, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the learned appellate Judge, while rendering the Impugned Judgment, did not consider the facts, failed to appreciate the law and did not exercise the appellate powers that were vested therewith. Per learned counsel, the present revision was to be granted as learned Additional District Judge failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested and hence this revision may be allowed against the Impugned Judgment in invocation of Section 115 (b), C.P.C.

3.       This Court has heard the learned counsel at considerable length and has also reviewed the record available. The Impugned Order was rendered by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mehar inter alia on the grounds that the suit was hopelessly time barred, hence barred by limitation, and prima facie it was apparent to the learned Senior Civil Judge that the litigation amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence in exercise of the powers available under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C the plaint was rejected.

4.       The learned appellate Judge upheld the Impugned Order and the operative part of the Impugned Judgment is reproduced herein below:

          “07.    ……… I have considered arguments of both sides and perused record. The learned trial Court has not committed any illegality while rejecting the plaint U/O 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is well settled law that false and fabricated litigation should be ended at the inception and it is well said “to nip the evil at bud”. The suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred. The plaint does not contain details or particulars of fraud as required under order 6 Rule 4 CPC and there are contradictory versions from the Appellant’s side therefore, order passed by learned trial Judge is well reasoned and according to law and does not need interference by this Court in appeal. Therefore, the appeal in hand is dismissed with no order as to costs.”

5.       The development of the contemporary law with regard to Order VII Rule 11 CPC was discussed in progressive detail by the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of Haji Abdul Karim & Others vs. Messrs Florida Builders (Private) Limited reported as PLD 2012 Supreme Court 247. The parameters within which such powers were to be exercised are exhaustively defined in the said judgment. The Impugned Order appears to have been rendered in exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Senior Civil Judge and the said exercise has been upheld by the learned Additional District Judge in the Impugned Judgment. However, the scope of this Court in revision is narrower than that which was available to the learned appellate Judge.

6.       The primary question before this Court is whether the Impugned Judgment suffers from any infirmity which merits the interference of this Court, within the parameters prescribed vide section 115 C.P.C. The learned counsel has been unable to identify any infirmity in the Impugned Judgment which would attract the provisions of afore cited section. It cannot be stated that the learned Additional District Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested as it is demonstrated from the record that the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the Impugned Order was duly assumed and validly exercised and resulted in the reasoned Impugned Judgment.

7.       In view of the foregoing, it is the considered opinion of this Court that no case for interference is made out by the applicant and hence the present Civil Revision Application, along with listed applications, is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 

                                                                                      Judge

Abid H. Qazi/**