IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
CivilR. A. S-11of 2022 : Abdul Fatah Chandio vs.
ShafiullahKamalani&others.
For the Applicant : Mr. Noor Ahmed Lashari, Advocate
Date of hearing : 07.03.2022.
Date of announcement : 07.03.2022
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J.(1) Deferred. (2) Granted; subject to all just exceptions. (3&4) The applicant had filed a suit, pending before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamber, and an interim application had been preferred therein seeking restraint upon the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit property. The said application was dismissedinter aliaon the premise that the plaintiff had not demonstrated possession of the suit property. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Court of learned District Judge, Kamber-Shahadadkot and the said appeal was also dismissed, hence, this revision.
2. Learned counsel submits that record and the facts pleaded by the applicant was not appreciated in its proper perspective by the respective court, hence, interference is merited in the present proceedings.
3. Heard and perused.The original order as well as order in appeal appear to have considered the record and the law and no infirmity in respect thereof has been identified to this Court.
4. The issue under reference is an interim order in respect of an interlocutory application. It is observed that a decision upon an interlocutory application is to be rendered upon the discretion of the learned trial court, however, such discretion had to be fettered by the settled precepts of law. No case has been set forth before this court to consider the impugned orders as anything but an exercise of discretion per the settled principles of law. The august Supreme Court has even otherwise deprecated the tendency to assail interlocutory orders in revisional jurisdiction.[1]
5. 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 orders 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. It is trite law[2] 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. It is the considered view of this court that no manifest illegality has been identified in the orders impugned and further that no defect has been pointed out in so far as the exercise of jurisdiction is concerned of the subordinate fora.
6. It is the considered view of this court that the applicant has remained unable to demonstrate any infirmity with the impugned orders, meriting interference in revision under Section 115 C.P.C, therefore, this revision is hereby dismissedin limine.
JUDGE
[1]Nestle Milkpak Limited vs. Classic Needs Pakistan Limited & Others reported as 2006 SCMR 21.
[2]Per Faqir Muhammad Khokhar J. in NaheedNusrat 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.