IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Civil Revision Appln. : Manzoor Hussain Abbasi vs.
No. S- 18& 19 of 2012 Mst. Yasmeen and Others
For the Applicant : Mr. Manzoor Hussain Abbasi
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shakeel Ahmed Abro, Advocate
Date of hearing : 21.01.2022.
Date of announcement : 21.01.2022.
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. These civil revision applications are co-related and, per applicant's / counsel’s request, were heard jointly and shall be determinedvide this common order.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration, possession, permanent injunction and recovery of articles against the applicant and thereafter the applicant also filed a suit for specific performance against the respondent No.1. Admittedly, the respondent No.1’s suit was decreed and that of the applicant was dismissed. It is further admitted that the appeals against the aforesaid were also dismissed, hence, these revision applications.
3. The record demonstrates that these revisions, filed in 2012, have remained pending for a decade with precious little progress having taken place. The diary denotes the chronic truancy of the applicant / counsel and there are numerous cautions recorded in such regard.
4. Per applicant, the only controversy is that the evidence was not properly appreciated by the respective Courts, in so for as, no proper verification of thumb impression was done. The respondent’s counsel submitted the concurrent findings are in favor of the respondent and nothing has been articulated to merit any interference therewith.
5. Heard and perused. The ambit of civil revisions is circumscribed by section 115 CPC and it is apparent that the same is not a subsequent forum of statutory appeal. Unless one or more of the ingredients of Section 115 CPC are apparent, a revision does not ordinarily lie[1].
6. The original judgment as well as judgment in appeal appear to have considered the record and the law and no infirmity in respect thereof has been identified to this Court.
7. It is settled law that in the presence of concurrent findings,coupled with preponderance of claim supported by evidence,a revisional court ought not to interfere even if another view was possible.Reappraisal of evidence was even otherwise undesirable in revisional proceedings[2].
8. This Court has considered the contentions of the applicant and has noted the inability to cite a single ground based upon which the jurisdiction of this Court could be exercised under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. There is no suggestion that the impugned judgments are either an exercise without jurisdiction or a failure to exercise jurisdiction or an act in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with any material irregularity.
9. It is trite law[3] that where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction had exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion had been judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same was contrary to law or usage having the force of law.
10. It is the considered view of this court that the applicant has remained unable to demonstrate any infirmity with the respective judgments, meriting interference in revision under Section 115 C.P.C, therefore, these revisionsare hereby dismissed.
JUDGE
[1]1997 SCMR 1139; 2000 SCMR 431; 2002 CLC 1295; 2004 SCMR 877.
[2]2011 SCMR 758; 2007 SCMR 236; 2006 SCMR 5; 2006 SCMR 1304.
[3]Per Faqir Muhammad Khokhar J. in Naheed Nusrat Hashmi vs. Secretary Education (Elementary) Punjab reported as PLD 2006 Supreme Court 1124; Naseer Ahmed Siddiqui vs. Aftab Alam reported as PLD 2013 Supreme Court 323.