IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Present:
Shamsuddin Abbasi, J.
Agha Faisal, J.
CP D 241 of 2024 : Azizullah Soomro & Another vs.
Muzafar Hussain & Others.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Naushad Ali Tagar, Advocate.
For official Respondents : Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional
Advocate General along with
Mr. Abdul Waris Bhutto, Asstt. A.G.
Date of hearing : 24.04.2024.
Date of announcement : 24.04.2024.
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. This writ petition has been filed essentially assailing an order in revision dated 12.03.2024, passed by the Court of the VI Additional District Judge Larkana in Civil Revision Application 10 of 2024 (“Impugned Order”). The said order had dismissed the revision against an order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the Court of the 1st Senior Civil Judge Larkana in Civil Miscellaneous Application 272 of 2023 in Execution Application 11 of 2022. Interestingly, ad interim orders have been obtained herein that have virtually suspended the execution proceedings and the same subsist till date.
Heard and perused. It is settled law that the ambit of a writ petition is not that of a forum of appeal, nor does it automatically become such a forum in instances where no further legal recourse is provided or precluded by the law[1], and is restricted inter alia to appreciate whether any manifest illegality is apparent from the order impugned. No such infirmity could be identified before this court in the order impugned; reproduced herein below:
While the petitioners’ counsel made no endeavor to identify any jurisdictional / patent infirmity in the Impugned Order, it is imperative to eschew such deliberation presently and advert to Section 115(4) CPC, which precludes the agitation of such matters before the High Court.
Section 115 CPC provides for the remedy of revision and subsection (2) thereof empowers the District Court to exercise powers of revision in respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate thereto. Subsection (4) thereof clearly explicates that no proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under subsection referred to supra by the District Court. Prima facie there is a statutory bar upon further escalation in the High Court of a matter determined per the aforementioned provision. The Impugned Order has admittedly been rendered per section 115(2) CPC and petitioner’s counsel has remained unable to advance any argument as to how this petition could be entertained in view of the statutory bar contained in section 115(4) CPC. It is settled law that Constitutional jurisdiction is equitable and discretionary in nature and should not be exercised to defeat or bypass the purpose of a validly enacted statutory provision[2].
The Supreme Court observed in Arif Fareed[3] that the objective of Article 199 of the Constitution is to foster justice, protect rights and correct any wrongs, for which, it empowers the High Court to rectify wrongful or excessive exercise of jurisdiction by lower courts and address procedural illegality or irregularity that may have prejudiced a case. However, it is emphasized that the High Court, in its capacity under Article 199, lacks the jurisdiction to re-examine or reconsider the facts of a case already decided by lower courts. The judgment in Hamad Hasan[4] deprecated such a tendency in no uncertain words and maintained that it was impermissible for Constitutional jurisdiction to be substituted for revisionary jurisdiction.
No jurisdictional defect has been demonstrated by the learned counsel in the Impugned Order, therefore, no case for invocation of writ jurisdiction is made out. Even otherwise, invocation of writ jurisdiction in view of the bar contained in section 115(4) CPC would prima facie disturb the conclusiveness ascribed to the finality of orders per section 115(2) CPC and unwarranted interference could be construed as defeating manifest legislative intent.
In view hereof, this petition is found to be misconceived, hence, dismissed along with all pending applications. The office is instructed to directly convey a copy hereof to the Court of the VI Additional District Judge Larkana and the Court of the 1st Senior Civil Judge Larkana.
Judge
Judge