MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- Through this revision application, the applicant seeks to invoke revisional jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of satisfying itself about the legality and propriety of the order and decree passed by Judge Small Causes Court.
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant/plaintiff filed a suit against respondent/defendant for recovery of Rs,21,600 pleading that the applicant/plaintiff was tenant of respondent/defendant in respect of flat in Hill Park Apartment situated at Karachi Memon Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Karachi. He deposited the suit amount with the respondent/defendant as security deposit which was refundable at the time of vacating the said flat. It was the case of the applicant/plaintiff that though the flat in question was vacated by him on 31-5-1995 yet respondent/defendant failed to refund security deposit to the applicant/plaintiff despite repeated requests and service of legal notice. Hence the applicant/plaintiff filed a suit against respondent/defendant in the Small Causes Court.
3. In her written statement respondent/defendant inter alia pleaded that the said deposited amount was payable after adjusting rent or any other unpaid charges payable by the tenant. It was further pleaded that the respondent/defendant had not paid rent and other dues such as water charges, sewerage charges, electric charges gas charges etc. and thus, the applicant/plaintiff was liable to a counter-claim. She prayed for counter-claim of Rs,94,625.
4. The applicant/plaintiff filed a written reply to the counter-claim. Thereafter the defendant filed statement dated 2-8-1999 and relinquished the claim of Rs,44,652. Eventually counter-claim of the respondent/ defendant was allowed to the extent of Rs,50,000.
5. It seems that the plaintiff/JD filed an application under Article 58 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 wherein he prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree and order for retrial of the suit beside staying of the execution application. Counter-affidavit to the application was filed by defendant/decree-holder. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 4-2-2006 and writ of attachment was ordered. The applicant/JD moved an application before the trial Court praying therein for allowing him to pay decretal amount in easy instalment of Rs,5,000 per month.
However, the said application was dismissed with direction to deposit entire amount on or before 28th instant.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has been heard and the order impugned in this revision application has been perused.
7. It is admitted position that the suit filed by the applicant/plaintiff was decided on merits. The suit of the applicant/plaintiff was dismissed whereas the counter-claim of the defendant was decreed to the tune of Rs,50,000 vide judgment and decree dated 15-5-2001. The decree passed by the trial Court was challenged before this Court in revisional jurisdiction. However, the said revision application preferred against the said decree was dismissed in limine vide order dated 7-12-2001, thus, the decree of the trial Court attained finality.
8. The perusal of the application moved under Article 58 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 reveals that through this application the plaintiff/JD intended the trial Court to set aside the judgment/decree passed by it. The bare reading of Article 58 would show that the application was highly misconceived as this Article describes the circumstances,' which, if proved, would avoid the evidentiary effect of a judgment admitted under Articles 54, 55 or 56 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The chequered history of the case makes it abundantly clear that the applicant/plaintiff had been making all attempts to drag the defendant/decree-holder in protracted litigation without any reasonable justification. It appears that the applicant/plaintiff was tenant of the respondent/defendant. After being ejected from the premises he filed a suit understandably to avenge his ejectment. However, his suit being without merit was dismissed while counter-claim of respondent/defendant was decreed vide judgment dated 15-5-2001.
9. The above judgment was challenged through Revision Application No,121 of 2001 which was dismissed in limine on 7-12-2001 yet the applicant continued to drag the respondent/defendant in frivolous litigation by moving various applications the last in series having been filed on 20-9-2003 which, was finally disposed of on 4-2-2006. It is obviously clear that the applicant has approached this Court with unclean hands, and there are reasons to believe that he had partly to suffer on account of ill-advice.
10. It is well-settled that revisional jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction and is meant to be exercised for correcting the errors of law and/or jurisdictional defects of the Court below. There is nothing wrong in the impugned order. No perversity impropriety or illegality has been noticed. Thus, the impugned order needs no interference.
These are the detailed reasons for the short order, dated 23-2-2006 by which this revision application was dismissed in limine.