1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this Civil Revision Application the applicant has challenged the judgment dated 27-9-2012 and decree dated 2-10-2012 passed by learned Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi East whereby he dismissed Civil Appeal No,213/2011 filed by the applicant and upheld the Judgment/Decree dated 31-3-2011 and 30-5-2011 respectively passed by learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East whereby he decreed respondents' Suit No,402/2009.
2. ' Precisely the facts of the case are that respondent, Mohammad Adil Khan, filed a civil suit for declaration, specific performance cancellation of documents, mesne profit, damages and permanent injunction against the applicant Nadeem Manzoor Hassan, proprietor of Messrs Bumbiya Associates, stating therein that the defendant/applicant being the builder announced a project, namely, "S.A Terrace, in response, plaintiff visited the site office of the applicant and booked one residential unit i,e, the Flat No,301 measuring 1000 square feet, situated on the 3rd floor of the project for the total sale consideration of Rs,10,00,000 payable in agreed instalments as per schedule of payment. Plaintiff also signed an application form on 27-2-2006 and paid Rs,100,000 through cheque under the receipt No,008, dated 27-2-2006, then, vide receipt No,012 dated 19-4- 2006, further paid Rs,2,00,000 through cheque but was not issued any allocation letter despite demands, however, on his visit on 7-5-2006, applicant/defendant placed before him an agreement in writing as per laws of Cantonment, accordingly the agreement was executed in respect of suit flat. Respondent/plaintiff asserted that vide receipts Nos.017, 028, 032, 041, 045, 056, 054, 065, 503, 073 and 506 he had further paid Rs,3.18,500 to the applicant till 26-8-2007. In the month of September, 2007, plaintiff on his visit to defendant's office came to know that the Faisal Cantonment Board had ordered stopping the construction work and defendant refused to receive the remaining amount till the decision with the specific commitment that after resolution of the issue with the Cantonment Board he would inform the plaintiff for further payment. Plaintiff alleged that on his visit to the site he had seen that not a single brick was put on plot on which the booked flat was to be constructed. It was further stated that instead of honoring the commitment of construction within stipulated period, the defendant kept the plaintiff on false promises and some time he avoided to meet with the plaintiff, but in the month of July 2008, defendant had promised delivery of the possession in the month of March 2009, and for the further payment he advised the plaintiff to wait for written communication by the defendant. Plaintiff claimed making payment of more than 60% of agreed cost and subsequently he learnt that the defendant in the month of November 2008, filed a suit bearing No,1391/2008, against the plaintiff in the Court of the 1st Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East for cancellation of the agreement of (sic).
3. ' The applicant/defendant filed written statement wherein he challenged the maintainability and legal character of the respondent to file the suit so also the accrual of cause of action. He stated that the completion of the project was subject to force majeure. He further stated that the total cost of a unit was Rs,14,00 000 in which loan and documentation charges are included and the suit unit was not west open. While admitting the payment he denied that the respondent had asked for allocation letter. He alleged that the respondent had made agreement and maintained that there is prescribed application form wherein terms and conditions have been mentioned. He also asserted that the respondent paid an amount of Rs,6,18,500 throughout the period from 27-2-2006 till 26-8-2006, with delay and late payment and a balance of Rs,7,81,500 is outstanding against him and he was declared as defaulter after giving all the opportunities, issuance of notices through mail service, making contacts and sending messages but the respondent failed to clear the dues.
4. Although 7 days notices 'was issued many times and the final notice was issued on 20-11-2007 wherein it was warned that on the ground of default booking, contract will be cancelled but the respondent did not turn up and ultimately the management of the applicant issued "Cancellation Notice" dated 23-12-2007. Despite these official proceedings, a legal notice through counsel was also sent on 5-1-2008, but the respondent miserably failed to contact with the applicant for the payment of arrears/instalment, even the respondent did not bother to reply the legal notice, as such the allotment/allocation of respondents flat was cancelled under clause 7 of the Terms and Conditions. He admitted that he filed a civil suit bearing No,1391/2008. He lastly prayed for dismissal of the suit with special costs.
5. ' Out of the pleadings, the trial court framed the issues and after recording of evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, decreed the suit as prayed, however the reliefs of damages and cost were declined. The Judgment and Decree of the trial court was assailed in appeal which was also dismissed, hence this civil revision application.
6. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record.
7. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the Judgments and Decrees passed by the two courts below are bad in law, illegal and violative of principles enunciated by the superior courts; that the courts below while passing the impugned judgments acted in haste without considering the law on the point and committed gross illegality and material irregularities. He further contended that the courts below have not properly considered the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant and ignored the material available on the record. According to him, cogent reasons have not been assigned for passing the impugned judgments. He prayed for setting aside of the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below.
8. ' Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No,1 contended that the revision application against the concurrent findings is not maintainable. He further contended that the applicant has not complied with the mandatory requirements of the provisions of section 115 C.P.C. By not submitting the copies of entire pleadings, hence the revision is liable to be dismissed. He submitted that the judgments of the two courts below are in accordance with the law and sound and cogent reasons have been assigned for passing the impugned judgments. According to him, the applicant instead of availing the remedy of IInd Appeal available to him under section 100 C.P.C. Has moved this revision application, hence the same is not maintainable. He prayed for dismissal of the revision application. He relied upon the case-law reported in 1997 CLC 659, PLD 1985 Peshawar 135, 2006 SCM R 595, PLD 2006 SC 309, 2006 SCM R 1304, 2000 SCM R 431 and 1998 CLC 2006.
9. It is now well settled that revisional jurisdiction of this Court has very limited scope and it can be exercised only in those cases where subordinate court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has declined to exercise jurisdiction or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction in a manner contrary to law or in a manner not warranted by law. In the case reported in 2001 SCM R 789 honourable Supreme Court held as under:-- "It is now firmly settled law that findings of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court based on appraisal of evidence and raising of inferences in its discretion could not be interfered with under section 115 C.P.C. Merely because a different view was also possible to be taken. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court suffers from want of jurisdiction."
10. ' In another case reported in PLD 1994 SC 291, the honourable Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact of two courts below could not be disturbed by High Court either in second appeal or in revisional jurisdiction unless Courts below while recording finding of fact had either misread the evidence or had ignored any material piece of evidence on record or the same was perverse---Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction was narrower, it could only interfere with the order of subordinate Court on ground that Court below had assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law or that Court below had acted with material irregularity affecting its jurisdiction in the case and the High Court under revisional jurisdiction can only correct jurisdictional errors of Courts below---Fact that High Court while reappraising evidence on record reached a conclusion different from that arrived at by two Courts below, such fact could never be a ground justifying interference with a finding of fact muchless a concurrent finding of fact recorded by Courts below on basis of evidence produced before them.
11. ' In the instant case, the applicant has not been able to establish that the two courts below had either misread the evidence or had ignored any material piece of evidence on record or that their finding was perverse, nor he has been able to show any jurisdictional error in the judgments of the two courts below. On the contrary, I find that two courts below after elaborately discussing the evidence and pleadings of the parties, have come to a right conclusion.
12. ' It is also well settled that the revision lies to this court against the decision or order of subordinate court in which no appeal .Lies. Revision is competent only in non-appealable orders or decisions, however where appeal has been provided under the law, revision is not competent. From bare reading of the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. It reveals that the said provision of law specifically states that revision will lie to the High Court against the decision or order of the subordinate court in which no appeal lies. Only in non-appealable orders or decisions, revision is competent but where appeal has been provided under the law, revision will not be competent. In this context reference may be made to the decisions reported in PLD 1970 SC 506 and PLD 1995 SC 472 wherein the apex court has held that decree or order passed by the trial court is appealable to High Court, revision without availing of remedy by way of such appeal was not competent. Revisional jurisdiction of this court under section 115 C.P.C. Does not confer any substantive right and the right to move in revision is merely a privilege granted to a party. In the instant case the applicant has the remedy of moving IInd Appeal under section 100 C.P.C. Against the decree passed in appeal by the appellate court subordinate court to this Court but instead of availing the said remedy, he has chosen to prefer revision application which, in such circumstances, is not maintainable.
13. ' So far as the legal plea raised by the learned counsel for respondent No,1 that revision application is liable to be dismissed as no certified copy of the plaint of Suit No, 1391/2008 filed by the applicant and the written statement filed by the respondent, which are part and parcel of the present proceedings, have been filed with the revision application as required under the law, as such the revision is liable to be dismissed on this score too. There is weight in such argument. Under section 115, C.P.C., it is mandatory requirement that copies of the pleadings etc. Should be filed along with the Revision Application. From the perusal of the record it reveals that the applicant has not filed copies of the plaint of Suit No,1391/2008 filed by him prior to the filing of the suit by the respondent which, in fact was the basis of filing the suit by the respondent, so also the written statement filed by the respondent in the said suit. The respondent in his affidavit in evidence has produced copies of the plaint in the said suit as well as written statement filed by him.
14. ' The honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as Banori (Mst.) v. Mani (PLD 2010 SC 1186) while dealing with in a very elaborate manner the revisional jurisdiction, set-forth guidelines for the subordinate courts for exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In the said judgment, inter alia, it has been held:-- "that in future, no applications filed under section 115, C.P.C. Are entertained unless accompanied by copies of the commanded documents and record:"
15. ' In view of dictum laid down by the honourable Supreme Court, it can safely be held that this Revision Application is liable to be dismissed on this ground too.
16. ' So far as merits of the case are concerned, the trial court has very elaborately and comprehensively discussed each and every point and has assigned cogent and sound reasons for its findings, as such there seems to be no misreading or non-reading of the evidence adduced by the parties either by the trial court or by the appellate court.
17. ' In view of above discussion, the Revision Application merits dismissal being not maintainable.
18. Order accordingly.
19. ' Above are the reasons for short order passed on 22-4-2013.