1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---The applicant is aggrieved by the judgment, dated 25-3-2008 and decree, dated 1-4-2008 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Thatta, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant and upheld the judgment and decree passed by Senior Civil Judge, Sujawal in Suit No,59 of 2004, filed by the respondent, decreeing the same.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a government servant and claims himself to be a social worker. He moved an application to the District and Sessions Judge/Director Board of Awareness and Protection of Human Rights, Thatta wherein he alleged that the respondent had stolen two big machines and is irrigating his lands through the same. He also alleged in the said application that the respondent is creating hindrances in the construction of water tanks in Solangi Mohalla. He also made a number of allegations against the respondent. Subsequently, the applicant filed another application in which repeated the same allegations and prayed that a case may be registered against the respondent. The respondent submitted his reply to such application wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him by the applicant. The applicant, in his reply to the reply filed by the respondent to his second application, again made some remarks which, according to the respondent, were false and defamatory. Accordingly, the respondent filed Suit No,59 of 2004 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sujawal which was allowed vide judgment, dated 30-8-2006 and the appeal filed by the applicant against such judgment was dismissed vide the impugned judgment, dated 25-3-2008. Hence, this revision application.
3. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the record as well as the case-law cited before me.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant stated that in para. 14 of the plaint filed by the respondent before the learned trial Court no date has been mentioned in respect of accrual of the cause of action. He then submits that points were not framed properly and that no issues were framed. He also submits that there is no allegation of publication of any defamatory material against the respondent in any newspaper and that the action on the part of the applicant is not mala fide. He also submitted that the trial Court was bound to ensure that its judgment is within the parameters of laws. He relied on the following reported cases:--
(1) PLD 1954 SC 70,
(2) PLD 1962 (W.P.) Lahore 765; and
(3) 2005 PTD 2139 (SC).
5. ' The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the applicant/defendant for damages in the sum of Rs,200,000. Summons was issued to the applicant who filed written statement. Issues were framed and both the parties led their respective evidence in support of their respective contentions. The learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence produced before him, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The applicant filed an appeal against such decree/judgment, which was dismissed. Now, it was for the applicant to show that either; (i) the trial Court/Appellate Court exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or (ii) did not exercise a jurisdiction vested in it or (iii) has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
6. ' The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no date has been mentioned in the para regarding cause of action. Para.14 of the plaint which discloses the cause of action, states that the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on the filing of the applications by the applicant against the plaintiff/respondent which contained dirty; shameful, defamatory allegations using abusive and vulgar language against the respondent/plaintiff and his family members. It is further stated in the said para. That the cause of action is still continuing till today. Thus, if the date has not been expressly mentioned even then impliedly the date of the cause of action is the date on which the said applications/replies to respondent's reply were submitted by the applicant. Therefore, such omission on the part of the plaintiff/respondent is not fatal.
7. ' Next, the learned counsel argued that points were not framed properly and no issues have been framed. This argument has no force as on page 6 of the judgment of the trial Court (at page 91 of the file), it is shown that the learned trial Court framed as many as seven issues and has discussed them in detail in the judgment. The appellate Court has framed points for determination which are available at page. 23 of the judgment and properly discussed each point and recorded its finding.
8. By framing points and giving findings thereon after discussing the same is substantial compliance of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel fails.
9. ' The learned counsel for the applicant also argued that there is no allegation of publication of defamatory material in a newspaper. This is not relevant since filing of the application, if proved to be containing defamatory material, is sufficient to provide a cause of action to the respondent/plaintiff.
10. ' A civil revision application can be filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:- "115. Revision.---The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears--
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit."
11. Thus, it will be seen that provisions of section 115, C.P.C. Envisage interference by the High Court only on account of jurisdiction alone i,e, if a Court subordinate to the High Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, or has irregularly exercised a jurisdiction vested in it or has not exercised such jurisdiction so vested in it. It is settled law that when a Court has jurisdiction to decide a question it has jurisdiction to decide it both in fact and law. The mere fact that its decision is erroneous in law does not amount to illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. For an applicant to succeed under section 115, C.P.C. He has to show that there is some material defect of procedure or disregard of some rule of law in the manner of reaching that wrong decision. In other words, there must be some distinction between jurisdiction to try and determine a matter and erroneous action of Court in exercise of such jurisdiction. It is a settled principle of law that erroneous conclusions of law or fact can be corrected in appeals and not by way of a revision which primarily deals with the question of jurisdiction of a Court i,e, whether a Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or has not exercised a jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised a jurisdiction vested in it illegally or with material irregularity.
12. ' Since the learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show any of ingredients justifying interference by this Court in exercise of powers vested in it under section 115, C.P.C., therefore, this revision application has no merits and is dismissed in limine together with the pending application.
13. Order, dated 6-2-2009, suspending operation of the impugned judgment is recalled.