' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---This civil petition is outcome of the order dated 10.10.2014, passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi, in R.A. No.85 of 2014, whereby two objections upheld by the appellate Court of Additional District Judge, Karachi South, for dismissing the application under Order XLI, rule 5, C.P.C. Filed by the respondents, were found to be not sustainable in law and accordingly the said revision was allowed in the following terms:- " .........It is further observed that the property documents that have been furnished before this Court for securing the decretal amount shall be tendered before the Appellate Court as security. The respondent shall be fully entitled to raise any objection with regard to its valuation. It shall also be open to the respondents to raise any other objection with regard to the security. The counsel for the respondent at this stage states that the applicant may be directed to deposit cash as security and not documents of the property as the same is situated in Punjab and it will be difficult to confirm its valuation. The question whether the property is to be accepted as security or that the applicant is to deposit cash as surety is left to the Appellate Court to decide. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside subject to the compliance of the directions contained in this order."
2. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, learned ASC for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. Admittedly, the appeal preferred by the respondents against the ex parte judgment/decree, which is now subject matter of execution proceedings, is pending before the Court of Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi South, who has dismissed the above referred application for suspension of impugned judgment and decree on the grounds that the application was not supported with the affidavit of any authorized person on behalf of the respondents and that it was filed at a belated stage. We have seen the case record and noticed that the High Court has aptly repelled such conjectural observations of the appellate Court and set aside its order in granting requisite relief to the respondents during the pendency of the appeal.
Order of the appellate Court dismissing the application under Order XLI, rule 5, C.P.C. Is a "case decided" within the meaning of section 115, C.P.C., thus open to challenge under section 115, C.P.C. A and any objection to this effect is miscouceived and devoid of any legal force.
3. This being the position, leave is refused and this petition isdismissed.