IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Civil Rev.No.S-07/2019 : Ghulam Mustafa Bohiyo Vs.
Ayaz Hussain and others.
For the Applicant/s : Mr. Imdad Ali Mashori, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar G.Jessrani, Advocate
Date/s of hearing : 13.05.2024.
Date of announcement : 13.05.2024.
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. This Civil Revision assails an interlocutory order and notwithstanding the issue of maintainability in such regard, it is also admitted that the main case, out of which the interlocutory order arose, has also been determined. Under such circumstances, Applicants' is confronted as to the maintainability whereof. Learned Counsel in response seeks time.
It is settled law that interference in interlocutory orders may only be merited in revisionary jurisdiction in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances[1]. It is the deliberated view of this court that no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances could be demonstrated before this court.
The narrative recorded in the impugned order has not been disputed by the applicant’s counsel and no cavil is articulated to the submission that there is no law mandating the court to grant such an application. The District Judge appears to have exercised discretion duly vested therewith and no exception in such regard could be demonstrated before this court.
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 order impugned and further that no defect has been pointed out in so far as the exercise of jurisdiction is concerned of the subordinate forum.
Even otherwise, learned counsel was unable 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 order is either an exercise without jurisdiction or a failure to exercise jurisdiction or an act in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with any material irregularity; and in any event the main case stands determined.
In view hereof, this revision is found to be misconceived and devoid of merit, hence, hereby dismissed.
Judge
[1] Khalid Mehmood vs. Judge Family Court, Faisalabad reported as 2010 YLR 336; Muhammad Baran vs. Member (Settlement & Rehabilitation) Board of Revenue, Punjab, reported As PLD 1991 Supreme Court 691.
[2] 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.