IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Civil Revision Appln. : Waliullah Shah and another vs.
No. S- 20 of 2014. Gul Hassan and another
For the Applicants : Mr. Prem Chand, Advocate.
For the Respondents
No.1 and 2 : Mr. Naushad Ali Tagar, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 13.05.2024.
Date of order : 13.05.2024.
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. Suit No.02 of 2010 was filed before the 1st Civil Judge Garhi Yasin and the same was determined by judgment and decree dated 16.10.2010. The same was challenged in civil appeal No. 57 of 2010 before 1st Additional District Judge, Shikarpur. Vide judgment dated 14.12.2013 the trial Court’s judgment and decree were set aside and the matter was remanded back. Operative part of the judgment is reproduced herein below:
“Learned trial Court has not properly appreciated evidence available on record. It further appears that issues answered and decided by learned trial Court are in conflict with each others. An impugned judgment is ambiguous and not clear. Registered sale-deed produced by applicants/ plaintiffs is a titled document but learned Advocate for respondents/ defendants has alleged that it is forged and fictitious document which required some evidence of both parties regarding genuineness or otherwise, therefore in these circumstances I partly allow appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and remand back case to trial Court to re-write a judgment and learned Advocate for appellants/ plaintiffs is at liberty to move an application before trial Court for production of registered sale-deed according to law and if appellants/ plaintiffs is allowed to produce registered sale-deed then it is incumbent upon trial Court to give opportunity to learned Advocate for respondents/ defendants to of cross-examination. There shall be no order as to costs. Instant appeal is disposed-of in above terms.”
It is prima-facie apparent that appellate order was of remand. Learned counsel for applicants was queried as to how he was aggrieved by a remand order and it is his submission that the additional evidence out to have been taken by the appellate Court itself.
Heard and perused. Learned counsel for the applicant has impugned the findings, however, has remained unable to identify any infirmity with respect to the judgment meriting interference in the revision jurisdiction of this court under Section 115 C.P.C. The judgment impugned has merely remanded the case for determination afresh in order to meet the ends of justice, hence, no case appears to be manifest to consider the same as being adverse or prejudicial to the lawful interests of either party.
It is trite law[1] 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.
This Court has carefully considered the contentions of the applicant and has noted the inability of the learned counsel 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.
It is the considered view of this court that the applicant has remained unable to demonstrate any infirmity with the judgment meriting interference in revision under Section 115 C.P.C, therefore, this revision is hereby dismissed.
Judge
[1] 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.