This Revision Application is directed against the order dated 5-2-1981 passed by the learned Vlth Additional Sessions Judge Karachi whereby he refused to restore Civil Revision Application No. 42 of 1980, dismissed for default.
The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the petition are that the applicant filed three suits before the III Family Judge, Karachi, against the respondent for the following reliefs:- "(a) Suit No. 1385/78, for Recovery of dower amount.
(b) Suit No. 1386/78 for dissolution of marriage.
(c) Suit No. 1409/78 for maintenance of minor child (Murtaza Ali Baig)."
2. The respondent also filed Suit No. 1662 of 1979 under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the minor Murtaza Ali Baig who was born on 3-3-1972 out of the wedlock between the parties.
3. The petitioner on the plea that the issues involved in the subsequent Suit No. 1662 of 1979 filed by the respondent would be same as already framed in the petitioner's suits, filed an application under section 10, C. P. C. That Suit No. 1662 of 1979 be stayed till the decision of the above- mentioned three suits filed by her. The trial Court however held that issues as well as cause of action involved in the suits are separate and different and hence Suit No. 1662 of 1979 could not be stayed. The learned trial Court further observed that the application had been filed in order to protract the proceedings. Accordingly the learned trial Court dismissed the said application for stay of the suit of the respondent.
The applicant against the aforesaid order filed Revision Application No. 42 of 1980 before the learned District Judge, Karachi, who admitted the revision and transferred the same to VIth Additional District Judge, for disposal.
On 20th August, 1980 the Revision Application was fixed for hearing. The applicant and her Advocate were absent when the case was called for hearing and consequently the said revision application was dismissed for non---prosecution.
4. On the same day (20th August, 1980) the Advocate for applicant moved an application under section 151, C. P. C. Alongwith his own affidavit for restoration of revision application on the ground that due to unexpected defect developed in his car he was delayed and that he reached the Court at 10 a.m. And found that the case had been dismissed for default.
5. The learned VIth Additional District Judge, Karachi relying upon the judgment given in the case of Ghanf Sons Industries Ltd. v. Akhlaque Ahmad (PLD 1974 Kar. 339), held that no power for restoration of revision application can be said to exist without a provision to the effect. It was further held in view of the case of Shamim Ahmad v. Razia Fatima (PLD 1975 Kar. 448), the applicant could not invoke section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Accordingly the learned Additional District Judge Karachi dismissed the application for restoration of the revision application as not maintainable.
6. The applicant has now preferred this revision application against the aforesaid order.
7. As to the maintainability of the present revision application against an order made on an application filed under section 151, C. P. C. In a revision petition the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order had been passed by the learned Additional District Judge on an application under section 151, C. P. C. And as such a revision application against such an order was competent and relied upon PLD 1975 Lah. 331.
The arguments advanced by the learned counsel however cannot be accepted as this revision application is directed against an order passed in the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction under section 115, C. P. C. As amended by Ordinance No. XII of 1972 under which District Courts were also conferred jurisdiction to exercise powers conferred under section 115, C. P. C. 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 However subsection (3) of section 115, C. P. C. Further provided that 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 Court, no further such application shall made to either of them. It is further provided under subsection (4) of section 115 of C. P. C., that :-- "No proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against the order made under subsection (2) by the District Court."
8. I also agree with the conclusions reached by the learned Additional District Judge that m view of the case of Ghani sons Ltd. v. Akhlaque Ahmad an application for restoration of revision petition would not lie in the absence of any provisions in Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the orders of dismissal of a revision petition for default.
Moreover the learned Additional District Judge has rightly referred to the case of Shamim Ahmad, wherein it has been held that in view of provisions of section 17 of the W. P. Family Courts Act whereby application a of Civil Procedure Code having been excluded, there is no scope for preferring a revision petition to the High Court. This is the view taken by this Court in the case of Mst.
Farida Parveen (PLD 1971 Kar. 118), and followed in Mst. Zaibunnissa's case (PLD 1972 Kar. 410) and Shamim Ahmad v. Razia.
PLD 1977 Lah. 911 referred to by the learned counsel.
9. The revision application was summarily dismissed by me by short order announced on 18th May, 1981 and the above are the reasons for the same.