IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Civil Revision No.S-190 of 2025

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE.

1. For orders on O/objection at flag-A.

2. For orders on CMA No.1218/25.

3. For orders on CMA No.1219/25.

4. For hearing of main case.

5. For orders on CMA No.1220/25.

16.09.2025

Syed Jaffer Ali Shah, Advocate for applicant.

**********

1. As to office objection as matter has been concluded the same need not be considered at this stage although learned counsel requires time to comply to the same.

2. Urgency allowed.

3. Granted, subject to all just exceptions.

4&5. Learned counsel for applicant contended that the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 as passed in Civil Appeal No.08 of 2025 has been passed without hearing the present applicant who was a party in the proceedings. He further contends that by way of the impugned order indulgence has been made that by way of the impugned order the return of the plaint ordered by the learned trial Court has been set-aside and the matter has been remanded. He further contends that though in the para-14 of the impugned judgment parties to the proceedings have been provided opportunity to exercise the available remedy u/o VII Rule-11 CPC or any other application, the said order amounts to exercise of powers without hearing the applicant at the appellate stage which is not available as further one ground of litigation is liable to be faced by the present applicant. One may not agree with the unilateral hearing in the matter however, as the impugned order is that of remand and rights in interest of the applicant are reserved no revisional powers was required to be exercised wherein learned counsel for the applicant required that at least a directions be issued for conclusion of an application U/o VII Rule-10/11 CPC in case filed by the applicant. Accordingly, it is reasonably expected that the learned trial Court shall conclude any such application within a very reasonable time to ensure that the parties are not put to any suffering and with the above observation only revision application stands disposed of wherein learned AAG not present in Court learned Additional Prosecutor General was held brief on his part.

J U D G E

Ihsan/PS.