This consolidated order shall dispose of instant writ petition along with following connected petition as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases: W.P. No. 64423 of 2019 titled Muhammad Azam and others v . Additional District Judge, Kasur & others.
2. Through instant petition, petitioners have assailed judgment dated 08.10.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kasur , to the extent of additional directions, which were issued while dismissing revision petition challenging order dated 21.06.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge, Kasur , filed by Respondents No. 3 to 8.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners filed suit for possession through partition. During proceedings of the suit, Respondents No. 3 to 8 filed applica tion under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.06.2018. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed revision petition before learned Additional District Judge, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 08.10.2019, with above-reproduced directions. Hence, instant petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that while passing impugned judgment, learned Revisional Court has stayed the proceedings of learned Trial Court and issued certain direction to the ADLR, which is absolutely without jurisdiction and unsustainable in the eye of law. In support, he has referred to Gul Rehman v. Gul Nawaz Khan (2009 SCMR 589). When confronted, learned counsel for respondents could not give any satisfactory reply as to whether learned Revisional Court could give any such direction while dismissing revision petition, especially when the issue was only to the extent of vires of order passed by trial Court dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
5. Heard. Available record perused.
6. Perusal of record shows that the only controversy agitated before learned Revisional Court was relating to the vires of order dated 21.06.2018, passed by Trial Court, whereby application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, filed by Respondents No. 3 to 8, was dismissed. However , while upholding the aforesaid order , learned Revisional Court has made following Additional observations, which are beyond its scope and the same are reproduced as under: "6. ... ADLR shall conclude the proceedings under progress and issue the fresh fard regarding the entitlement of the parties in the suit land for partition purpose till then suit shall not proceed ...."
Learned Revisional Court, while dismissing revision petition, touched the controversy which was not agitated before it as direction to this extent could only be issued by learned trial Court where the lis was pending. Since learned Revisional Court was not authorized to pass any such directions, same are without any lawful authority .
7. Needless to say that, revision and appeal are two different fields. Appeal is the continuation of original suit and Appellate Court has got ample power to thrash out the entire evidence and scruti nize the available documents in the light of arguments advanced by the respective parties. On the other hand, scope of revision is limited to some illegality , material irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order/judgment. A bare perusal of Section 115, CPC clearly shows that scope of revision is limited to the above points. Reference is made to Gul Rehman's case supra .
8. Resultantly , instant petition, along with connected petition, is allowed and impugned judgment is modified to the extent as indicated in para 6 supra.