1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this Civil Revision Application the applicant Mohammad Ashraf has challenged the judgment dated 7-7-2012 passed by learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi East whereby he set aside the order dated 16-5-2011 passed by Vth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East in Execution Application No,7 of 2009 and fresh Exh. Appin. No,5 of 2012 whereby he allowed Exh. Appin. No,5 of 2012 without consolidating the two Exh. Applications and without first deciding pending Miscellaneous Applications filed by respondent/J.D. No,2.
2. ' Precisely the facts of the case are that the applicant filed Civil Suit No,716 of 2005 against respondents Nos.1 and 2 for recovery of Rs,25,65,000. During the pendency of the suit, on the application of the applicant. Preliminary decree for an amount of Rs,15,65,000 was issued. The applicant filed Execution Application No,7 of 2009 which was allowed vide order dated 17-12-2009.
3. The said order which was challenged through R.A. 6 of 2010 which was dismissed vide order dated 24-2-2010. Against the said order respondent No,2 filed Constitutional Petition No,D-935 of 2010 which was also dismissed by a D.B. Of this court and leave to appeal was also refused by the honourable Supreme Court. Respondent No,2 filed Civil Appeal No,50 of 2009 against the preliminary decree which was also dismissed. Thereafter final decree was passed in favour of the applicant vide judgment dated 23-12-2009 followed by Decree dated 24-12-2009 against which respondent No,2 filed Civil Appeal No,19 of 2010 which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 16- 3-2012 and decree dated 23-3-2012. However, the applicant being aggrieved regarding amount of earnest money, preferred Appeal No,32 of 2010 which was dismissed on the point of limitation vide order dated 16-3-2012 which was not challenged by the applicant. Thereafter the applicant filed second Execution Application No,5 of 2012 in respect of final judgment and decree and the learned Vth Senior Civil Judge Karachi East after hearing both the execution applications together allowed the same vide order dated 16-5-2012. The operative part from the said order is reproduced as under:-- "Accordingly present execution application is allowed with direction to JDs to pay the decretal amount including prevailing bank interest of 14% in compliance of judgment dated 16-3-2012 and application under Order XXI, R. 64 R/W section 151 C.P.C. Filed by D.H. Is allowed with observation that if the JD has failed to comply this order attached property of the J.D. Will be sold out/auctioned by the Nazir of District and Sessions Judge, Karachi East. The all applications of the J.Ds have been dismissed as the same have no force/merits for consideration at this stage."
4. ' Respondent No,1 filed Revision Applications Nos.71 of 2012 and 75 of 2017 under section 115, C.P.C.
5. Against the order dated 16-5-2012 which were disposed of vide order dated 7-7-2012. For the sake of convenience relevant portion from the said order is reproduced as under:-- "According to the pleadings of the parties Rs,7,00,000 claimed due to suffer mental torture and not refund of amount by the respondent/defendants Nos.1 and 2 and mother of the claimant was died after seriously ill hence the learned trial court considered the plea and allowed the bank interest. It is therefore this court set aside the findings upto interest as the learned trial court in its judgment not satisfactorily mentioned nor explain about the documentary medical evidence regarding he ailing mother hence being distinguished with the judgment of the learned trial court, the interest was not allowed which was left to explain in the order of this court inadvertently. This is the mistake on the part of this court, therefore, it is rectified only in order to avoid further complication between the parties. Let the correct decree be prepared.
6. ' So far as the question of dismissal of Execution No,7 of 2009 is concerned which has attained finality therefore, the issue cannot be re-agitated.
7. ' In view of the above reasons since the learned trial court decided all applications in a single order which is against the principle of law, as the prayer clauses of all the application are different, therefore, it requires separate order. Since there is complication regarding the interest amount, therefore, the same is corrected and in this respect the correct decree will he prepared. Order passed by the trial court is hereby set aside. The parties will appear before the learned trial court in order to decide all the applications afresh filed in the execution application...
8. ' The above said order dated 7-7-2012 has been impugned through instant Revision Application.
9. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record.
10. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in law; that the order for preparation of decree dated 18-7-2012 is nothing but the supplement of the judgment and decree passed earlier which is not permissible under the law. He further contended that Civil Appeal No,19 of 2010 was silent about the interest, hence the court exceeded its authority while observing that it had declined interest in the judgment dated 16-3-2012 but the decree could not be prepared properly, therefore, preparation of fresh decree was illegal and unlawful. He further contended that it is settled law that if the judgment and decree has been passed signed and announced by the Judge then no alteration and addition could be made save as provided by section 152, C.P.C. Or review, hence the learned appellate court exceeded the limit of its power.
11. According to him, there was no slipshod or omission in the judgment dated 16-3-2012 and decree dated 22-3-2012, hence the reasons given in the impugned order is nothing but undue benefit to the respondents thereby righting off the interest. He further contended that the appellate court used the power of section 100 C.P.C. While deciding a revision application which is not permissible in law. He further contended that the respondent No,2 did not challenge the From the bare perusal of the language of subsection (4) of section 115, C.P.C. It is crystal clear that the High Court cannot entertain a further/second revision against an order passed in revision by the District Court. In the instant case the impugned order has been judgment dated 16-3-2012 and decree dated 22-3-2012 by way of filing review application under section 114 or under section 152 C.P.C. For correction, then how the learned appellate court corrected its own decree by ordering to prepare second decree.
12. He prayed for setting aside of the impugned order.
13. ' Conversely learned counsel for the respondent No,1 contended that the revision is not maintainable; the impugned order passed by the appellate court is in accordance with the law and norms of justice. He contended that the learned trial court without assigning any reason in a slipshod manner dismissed all the applications filed by the respondents in one stroke which is not sustainable in law. He further contended that in fact while passing order dated 16-3-2012 in Civil Appeal No,19 of 2010 the learned appellate court had declined the grant of interest but due to omission it was not explained as to why interest on such amount could not be granted, therefore, in the impugned only such omission was rectified and no material changes took place in the fresh decree. He further. Contended that the applicant did not challenge the refusal to grant interest in the higher forum, as such the said finding attained finality. He prayed for dismissal. Of the revision application.
14. ' Section 115(1), C.P.C. Confers revisional powers on the High Court. By virtue of subsection (2) of section 115, C.P.C. The District Court is empowered to exercise same revisional powers as conferred on the High Court. For the sake of convenience subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 115, C.P.C. Are reproduced as under:-- "(2) The District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by subsection (1) in respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate to such District Court in which no appeal lies and the amount or value of the subject-matter whereof does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court.
(3) If any application under subsection (1) in respect of a case within the competence of the District Court has been made either to the High Court or the District, no further such application shall be made to either of them.
(4) No proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under subsection (2) by the District Court."
15. Form the bare perusal of the language of subsection (4) of section 115, C.P.C. It is srystal clear that the High Court cannot entertain a further/second revision against an order passed in revision by the District Court. In the instant case the impugned order has been passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi East in Revisions Applications filed under section 115 C.P.C. In the circumstances, instant revision application is obviously not maintainable.
16. ' Even on merits the applicant has no case. From the perusal of order dated 16-5-2012 it seems that by the said order, learned Vth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East disposed of execution application as well as other Misc. Applications filed by the respondent No,2/Judgment Debtor. It would be advantageous to reproduce hereunder the opening para of the said order:-- "By this order, I will dispose of application for execution of judgment dated 23-12-2009 and decree 24-12-2009, passed in; Civil Suit No,716 of 2005 by the present court, in compliance of judgment dated 16-3-2012 passed by honourable IHrd Addl: District Judge, Karachi East as well as application under section 151, C.P.C. Filed by advocate for J.D. No,2, in which prayed to direct the J.D. No,3 namely Abdul Aziz to deposit the original title documents of the attached property (in Execution No,07/2009) and application under section 151, C.P.C. Filed by J.D. No,2 in which prayed to recall all the illegal orders passed by this court after 28-1-2010, order dated 1-12-2010 and show cause notice dated 3-4-2010, and application under Order XXI Rule 64 read with section 151 C.P.C., filed by advocate for D.H. In which prayed to sell the property, Flat No,P-701, AlMaryam Arcade, A.A.
17. Rehman Street, Garden East Karachi and application under section 151, C.P.C. Filed by J.D. No,2 in which prayed to amend and added as J.D. No,3 and direction may be issued to him to submit the original title-documents of attached property before this court or Nazir of this court, and application under section 113 C.P.C. Filed by J.D. No,2 in which prayed to clarify from the learned appellate court i,e, 11Ird Addl: District Judge, Karachi-East as to "Whether any interest in the judgment dated 16-3-2012 and decree dated 22-3-2012, and decree dated 22-3-2012 passed in Civil Appeal No,19 of 2010 was allowed or not."
18. The learned trial court allowed the execution application. However, he dismissed all the Misc.
19. Applications mentioned above in the following terms:- "The all applications of the J.Ds. Have been dismissed as the same have no force/merits for consideration at this stage.
20. ' It is apparent that the learned trial court went on to dismiss all the applications filed by the J.Ds.
21. With one stroke order in a slipshod manner without discussing merits and demerits of the said applications. Obviously it is a non-speaking order so far as these applications are concerned having been passed without assigning any reasons for their dismissal. It was held by this Court in the case reported in PLD 2002 Karachi 524 @ 529 (C):-- "Not only a Judge but by way of introduction of new provision of section 24-A(2) of the General Clauses Act every authority, office or person making an order under the powers conferred by or under any enactment is required to assign/record reasons for passing the order." An order shall be a speaking order and more particularly while dealing with substantive rights of parties a cursory and a groundless order without assigning reasons cannot be considered, nor would it be treated as a legal one."
22. ' Now I would like to deal with the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the appellate court exceeded its authority while ordering for preparation of proper decree on the ground that it had declined interest in the judgment dated 16-3-2012 but the decree could not be prepared properly, as such preparation of fresh decree was illegal and unlawful. The relevant portion from the judgment passed by the trial court in Suit No,716 of 2006 regarding grant of interest reads as under:-- "Plaintiff has claimed that he has suffered mental torture and also lost earnest money to the extent of Rs,700,000 due to the non-refund of the amount taken by defendants Nos.1 and 2 and mother of plaintiff became seriously ill and died in hospital but the defendants had failed to return the amount causing mental torture to the plaintiff.
23. ' A person in loss of Rs,18,65,000 would naturally suffer mental agony and his business would also suffer due to the shortage of rolling amount.
24. ' Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for the remaining amount of Rs,3,65,000 as well as earnest money to the extent of Rs,7,00,000 with usual bank interest till the amount is realized...
25. ' The above judgment and decree was challenged in Civil Appeal No,19 of 2010. The appellate court vide its judgment dated 16-3-2012 while rectifying the mistake that the remaining amount payable by J.D. Is Rs,3,00,000 and not Rs,3,65,000 also allowed the earnest money only and there was no mention of maintaining the order of interest its passed by the trial court. The relevant portion from the judgment is reproduced as under:-- ' Examining the instant case in the light of above provision of judgment of the trial court is rectified and be read as suit is also decreed against defendants Nos.1 and 2 for the remaining amount of Rs,3,00,000 and earnest money is also awarded to the extent of Rs,7,00,000 only"
26. ' It is evident from the word "only" that only earnest money is awarded without any interest.
27. However, according to the revisional court, due to inadvertence reasons for not awarding the interest could not be explained in its judgment passed in the appeal. It is an admitted position that the applicant did not at all challenge the said order particularly the finding of not granting the interest in the higher forum. In the circumstances the said finding attained finality.
28. ' Now question arises as to whether the revisional court which had also functioned as appellate court in the same matter, could rectify its own mistake of not furnishing reasons without making any material change in the decree passed in the capacity of appellate court. Before proceeding further sections 151 and 152 C.P.C. Are reproduced as under:-- "151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.---Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court."
152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders.---Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties."
29. It is well settled principle of law that justice is not only to be done but it should appear to have been done. The inherent power bestowed under section 151 C.P.C. Empowers the court to do justice or redress a wrong even if there is no express provision of the Code in order to secure the ends of justice. The court has inherent power to take all steps to execute its own mandates and orders. The provision of this section empowers a court to correct its own mistake. Likewise from the perusal of the language of section 152 C.P.C., it seems that the court is empowered to correct, inter alia, the errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission at any time even of its own motion. The wordings in the said section i,e, (i) errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, (ii) at any time and (iii) of its own motion are of worth importance.
30. ' Examination the instant case in the light of above provision of law, it seems that due to accidental slip or omission, an error arose in the judgment of the appellate court and the court being authorized corrected the same of its own motion. Words "at any time" also stipulate that there is no time limit provided but such error could be corrected at any time. It is worthwhile to point out that by such correction no material change occurred in the previous decree as from the judgment dated 16-3-2012 passed in Civil Appeal No,19 of 2010 it is clear that the order of the trial court regarding grant of interest was not maintained but, according to the appellate/revisional court, reasons for such finding could not be furnished due to inadvertence. It is also of worth importance that even otherwise the said finding of the appellate court of not maintaining the order of the trial court regarding grant of interest attained finality as the same was at all not challenged before any higher forum by the applicant.
31. ' The upshot of above discussion is that the instant revision application being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed in limine along with pending application. in limine.