ORDER ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J. - Imtiaz Ahmad Chatta petitioner has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the validity of order dated 15.10.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad whereby revision petition filed by Hashmat Ali Akhtar respondent No. 4 against the order dated 1.7.2008 passed by learned Rent Controller, Faisalabad, was accepted.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this Constitutional petition are that Hashmat Ali Akhtar respondent No. 4 filed an ejectment petition against Ijaz Qadeer etc. During the course of proceedings, the tenants were directed to deposit the monthly rent in view of Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The tenants failed to deposit the rent and on 18.10.2007 in view of Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, their defence was struck of and they were directed to vacate the possession of the disputed premises within a period of 30 days subject to depositing of usual rent.
Hashmat Ali Akhtar respondent No. 4 moved an execution petition regarding eviction of the tenants.
3. During the pendency of the execution petition, Imtiaz Ahmed Chatta etc. (petitioner) moved an application against Habib-ur-Rehman, Hashmat Ali, Ijaz Qader and Ahmed Raza under Section 12(2), C.P.C. Stating. Therein that the respondents obtained the order dated 18.10.2007 regarding eviction of the tenants on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation. Vide order dated 1.7.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class/Rent Controller, .Faisalabad issues were framed and operation. Of the order dated 18.10.2008 was suspended till the decision of the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the afore-said order dated 1.7.2008, Hashmat Ali Akhtar respondent No. 4 preferred revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and the same has been accepted through impugned order dated 15.10.2008, which that been assailed through this writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the revisional Court has grossly misread and ignored the important piece of evidence on the record; the findings of the Court are perverse and cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of contention that writ petition is maintainable against the revisional order has relied upon the following cases-law:- Multiline Associate v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others (1995 SGMR 362).
Qamar-ud-Din v. Muhammad Din and others (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 518). v Muhammad Asghar v. District Judge, Sialkot and 3 others (1984 SCMR1225).
Mst. Sardar Begum v. Malik Khalid Mehmood and others (1966 CLC 2342).
Muhammad Munir v. Munir Ahmad^(2002 YLR 3196).
Mst. Sarwar Jan and 8 others v. District Judge, Bagh and others (2006MLD12), The Administrator-General of Auqaf, Government of Pakistan and another v. The District Judge, Sargodha (2001 CLC 218).
Muhammad Zahoor and another v. Lai Muhammad and 2 others (1988 SCM R 322).
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material on the record, I find that the impugned order of the learned revisional Court, even if being erroneous on facts or law, cannot be interfered in the Constitutional jurisdiction,, as the writ against such order is incompetent. However, the learned revisional Court had judiciously exercised its jurisdiction and passed a well- considered order. In the present case there is nothing to show that the learned revisional Court had exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in it or had asked in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity rather the learned revisional Court on the basis of proper reading consideration and appreciation of the. Evidence, has passed the reasoned order, which cannot be upset. Reliance is placed on the following case-law:- "Muhammad Khan and 6 others v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 12 others (1991 SCM R 970).
Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan and 2 others (PLD 1985 SC 131).
Hassasn Din v. Hafiz Abdus Salam (PLD 1991 SC 65).
7. In case of Noor Muhammad, it was held that there was an increasing tendency to file Constitution petitions even when the. Courts, whose orders were challenged, had the jurisdiction to pass those orders. Further, it was observed that so was done notwithstanding the fact that where the Court has jurisdiction to decide a matter, it can do so rightly or wrongly and the mere fact that - the decision on a question of factor law is not correct, does not necessarily render it without lawful authority and certainly not illegal.
8. In the case reported as Hassan Din, leave to appeal was granted to examine, whether the decision of this Court in above-referred Noor Muhammad case did not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in Constitutional jurisdiction with an order passed by the District Judge under sub-section (2) of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that the effect of the judgment delivered in Noor Muhammad case is not that a Constitutional petition is in no case permissible whatsoever the nature of the defect in the proceedings before District Judge be.
Further, it was observed that a mere illegality committed with jurisdiction shall not be a ground for entertaining, a Constitutional petition.
9. The cases-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, following the dictum laid down by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan which is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do find no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed in limine.