' YAR MUHAMMAD, J.---This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 18-12-2015 passed by District Judge, Skardu whereby the learned Judge has suspended the concluding para of the judgment passed in civil Suit No,130/14 by learned senior Civil Judge Skardu which suit was sub judice in his court between the parties.
2. Briefly the background of this case which gave birth to the instant revision is that parties were disputing over a Masjid situated at proper Skardu. The dispute was not settled amicably between the parties ultimately the situation compelled the respondents/plaintiffs to file the suit. After completion a full dress trial the learned trial judge disposed of the suit through his judgment and decree dated 10-11-2015 whereby while determining some point for compliance to the parties, he dismissed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an appeal in the court of learned District Judge Skardu.
They also appended an application under section 151, C.P.C. Along with the appeal seeking suspension of the judgment dated 10-11-2015. The learned District Judge on 18-12-2015 suspended the concluding para of the judgment till disposal of the appeal and thereby while issuing notice to the petitioners/defendants and record of the lower court he adjourned the appeal to 21-12-2015. On the said date the petitioners/defendants appeared and accordingly, they were supplied with memo of the appeal and the appeal was then deferred to 05-3-2016 for arguments.
3. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the order dated 18-12-2015 passed by the learned District Judge Skardu suspending the concluding para of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the petitioners/defendants have preferred this revision petition with the prayer that by accepting the same the impugned order of the First Appellate Court may graciously be set aside to meet the ends of justice.
4. Malik Shafqat Wali, Advocate the learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned order dated 18-12-2015 passed by the learned District Judge was the result of misconception law and facts on the record and further submitted that the order was passed in the result of an application filed under section 151, C.P.C. Along with the appeal by the respondents/plaintiffs avoiding to seek the relief invoking the provisions laid under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX, C.P.C. Which was the relevant law for the relief; argued that the impugned order has passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court while entertaining such application has committed illegality resulting in the miscarriage of justice and the same being ab-initio null and void may be declared accordingly. He argued that since the impugned order has been passed under section 151, C.P.C., therefore, the instant revision petition is competent because the learned 1st Appellate Court instead of providing a relief to the respondents/plaintiffs under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX, C.P.C., has used his discretionary powers was illegal. Mr. Johar Ali, Advocate on the other hand contended that this revision petition is not competent in the attending circumstances of the case because the impugned order is nothing except an arrangement for the interim period which has not attained finality. Argued that a revision is filed against a final judgment or order. The appeal is still pending in the Court of District Judge for adjudication and Rule-4 of Order XXXIX, C.P.C. Was available to the petitioners to target the impugned order before the same court through filing an application.
5. The arguments pro and contra heatedly advancing before me have minutely been examined in the light of relevant law and the procedure. The respondents who have called in question the judgment and decree dated 10-11-2015 through filing an appeal before the learned District Judge, have also filed an application under section 151, C.P.C. Instead of invoking the provisions of Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX, C.P.C. And the learned District Judge through his short order suspended the concluding/operative para of the judgment and posted the matter to 05-3-2016 for arguments.
The learned District Judge did not raise any question to the respondents who then were the appellants before him as to why they had not invoked the provisions of Rules-1 and 2 of Order XXXIX, C.P.C. Instead of seeking the relief under discretionary powers. It is the settled principle of law that when a clear provision of law is available for dealing with an issue, discretionary and inherent powers of court are not invoked. Anyhow, when an order is passed under section 151, C.P.C. Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, ordinarily the High Court did not interfere with such order in revisional jurisdiction but this view is not absolute. The Court can even interfere with such orders when it is considered that the order was perverse or illegal and has attained finality otherwise the revisional jurisdiction of this court could not be competently invoked.
6. No doubt that section 151, C.P.C. Was not applicable in the instant matter because of the presence of express provision laid under Rules-1 and 2 of Order-XXXIX, C.P.C. Therefore, the learned 1st Appellate Court instead of suspending the judgment was required to determine some points between the parties for their compliance but even then the instant revision is not competent for various reasons. Suppose that if the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners are taken as legal and accordingly the impugned order is suspended this court could not also be able to pass an order acceptable to both he parties as arrangement for interim period. It is presumed that an order was maintained by the learned trial court during pendency of suit but such order has not been brought on record and even then if the impugned order is suspended the validity of such order will not be different to that of the impugned order dated 18-12-2015.
7. I have gone through the file to check the documents filed by the petitioner with the revision petition and found the same were not complete. The petitioners were legally bound to file all the documents which normally are being provided to the 1st Appellate Court in the shape of record of the trial court for safe disposal of the appeal. The petitioners have even failed to bring on record any order passed by learned trial court during pendency of the suit in respect of any injunction matter enabling this court to see if, while suspending the judgment the learned District Judge has not traveled beyond the scope of that order upon which the parties were agreed to be abided by till disposal of the suit.
8. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners may seek the relief from the court of learned District Judge Skardu by moving an application under Rule 4 of Order XXXIX, C.P.C. If they so advised.