IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT AT LARKANA

Civil Revision Application S-25 of 2018

Ali Muhammad & Others  

vs.

Sikandar Ali & Others

For the Applicants:                          Mr. Ali Muhammad

Applicant in person

For the State:                                   Mr. Muhammad Bux Qazi

                                                          State Counsel

Date of Hearing:                              17-09-2018

Date of Announcement:                 17-09-2018

O R D E R

Agha Faisal, J.     Through this Civil Revision Application, the applicant has assailed the judgment dated 19.03.2018 delivered in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 03 of 2018 by the learned District Judge Kambar-Shahdadkot @ Kambar (“Impugned Judgment”), wherein the order on application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C for restoration of F.C Suit No.34 of 2017, passed by the Senior Civil Judge Warah (“Trial Court Order”) had been upheld and the appeal was dismissed. The operative part of the Impugned Judgment is reproduced herein below:

“For what have been discussed above, I am of the considered view that application U/O 9 Rule 9, C.P.C before trial court was time barred by 77 days, which too without supporting forma application of Section 5 of Limitation Act, therefore, learned Judge of trial court had rightly dismissed it vide order dated 21.11.2017, which calls for no interference. I see no substance in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in hand. Therefore, dismiss the same. Eventually, order impugned dated 21.11.2017 passed by court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Warah is maintained.

2. The applicant is present in person and has been unable to dispel the basis upon which the conclusion was predicated in the Impugned Judgment. The applicant has been unsuccessful in pointing out any infirmity in the Impugned Judgment.

3. Mr. Muhammad Bux Qazi, learned State Counsel, supports the Impugned Judgment and states that the same is in due consonance with law.

4. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court stems from Section 115 of the C.P.C and the applicant has been unable to demonstrate any grounds meriting the interference of this Court.

5. It is well settled law that concurrent findings of the Courts below coupled with the preponderance of claim may not ordinarily be interfered in revisional jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgments of the superior Courts reported as 1997 SCMR 1139, 2000 SCMR 431, 2004 SCMR 877 and 2002 CLC 1295.

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

                                                                                                      Judge

Abdul Salam/P.A