1. ' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---This civil revision application under section 115, C.P.C. Has been filed against the order, dated 4-2-2010, passed by learned District Judge, Karachi-East, on an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 read with section 151, C.P.C. The order impugned in this revision is quoted hereunder:-- "Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendants needs consideration. Hence leave to defend the suit is granted to the defendant conditionally subject to furnishing security to the extent of the suit amount within 10 days hereof."
2. ' The brief facts leading to this revision application are summarized as under:-- ' The respondent filed a suit under order XXXVII, C.P.C. Against the present applicant before the learned District Judge, Karachi-East, where the present applicant appeared and filed leave to defend application. The learned District Judge after hearing the parties passed order dated 4-2- 2010 granting leave to defend to the applicant subject to furnishing security to the extent of the suit amount within ten days from the date of order. It appears that compliance was not made by the applicant and amount as ordered by the Court per order dated 4-2-2010 was not deposited and after more than one month this revision application has been filed before this Court.
3. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record available before me.
4. ' At the very outset I asked the learned counsel for the applicant to satisfy the Court as to how this revision is maintainable as in case of non-compliance of the order quoted above decree follows and once decree has been passed in the matter appeal is provided under the law. Learned counsel could not satisfy the Court about the maintainability of the present revision. However, he invited my attention to the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. which provides that High Court can interfere in the order passed by the lower Court if no appeal is provided and if trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise of its jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity A bare reading of provisions of section 115, C.P.C. Shows that revision lies only in case where no appeal is provided and the case falls under any of the clauses mentioned (a), (b) and (c) of section 115, C.P.C. But none of the provision is attracted in the present case. No other argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of the case.
5. ' In this view of the matter the present revision application merit no consideration and is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.