Pakistan Case Law← Search
2018 LHC 1556, 2018 MLD 1733

SHABBIR HUSSAIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR and 4 others

Citation2018 LHC 1556, 2018 MLD 1733
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No, 214647 of 2018
Date2018-05-25
Judge(s)Amin-Ud-Din Khan
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this writ petition following prayer has been made:-- "Under the circumstances, it is very humbly prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees dated 2.6.2015 & 13.3.2018 passed by the learned trial and appellate court respectively may please be set aside; rather the decrees be reversed i,e, in favour of the petitioner."

2. I have heard preliminary arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the record.

3. According to brief facts of the case plaintiff-petitioner on 27.6.2011 filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction whereas private respondents Muhammad Ibrahim etc. on 3.8.2011 filed a suit for possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Respective written statements were filed and suits were contested. As per learned counsel consolidated issues were framed on 8.2.2013.

Petitioner was recorded as plaintiff as his suit was prior in time. His oral evidence was recorded as PW and witnesses of the other side were recorded as DWs. Same is the position of documentary evidence as Exh.P and Exh.D. Learned trial court dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner and decreed that of the respondents through a consolidated judgment dated 2.6.2015. As per learned counsel revision petition was filed against the consolidated judgment challenging both parts of the judgment whereby suit of the respondents was decreed and that of the petitioner was dismissed.

Revision petition was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.03.2018.

4. I have noticed that decree sheet of the suit of the petitioner along with consolidated judgment of the learned trial court has been appended with this writ petition. The decree sheet of the other case has not been appended. When confronted with the learned counsel that against the decree of the suit filed by the respondents under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 a revision was competent by the petitioner/judgment-debtor but against the dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner an appeal was required to be filed, admittedly which has not been filed and his suit stood dismissed, how he can challenge the judgments through this writ petition passed in favour of respondents whereby their suit was decreed and revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed, learned counsel states that as the judgment was consolidated, therefore, the revision petition was filed. Argues that even if the revision was not competent and appeal was competent, the court was competent to convert the revision petition into an appeal. I am afraid the principle stated by the learned counsel for conversion of revision into appeal and appeal into revision is question of law but that principle is not applicable to the facts of this case as against the judgment and decree passed in a suit filed by the respondents under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 a revision was competent and no appeal was competent which was rightly filed by the petitioner but against the dismissal of his suit an appeal was required to be filed which was not filed, therefore, no question of conversion of revision into appeal is applicable in this case. In these circumstances, when petitioner has not challenged the judgment and decree of dismissal of his suit before the appellate forum which attained finality and only challenging the judgment and decree passed in favour of respondents whereby suit filed under section 9 of the Act, ibid, was decreed and revision was dismissed the petitioner is required to show some jurisdictional defect but the learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any such defect in the orders impugned through this constitutional petition nor I have seen any defect therein, therefore, indulgence of this Court while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not warranted through the constitutional petition in hand. In this view of the matter, when the orders have been passed in accordance with law, same cannot be declared to be without jurisdiction, hence, this writ petition having no force stands dismissed in limine.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search