M UHAM M AD ALI M AZHAR, J.---The short-lived facts of the case are that the petitioner challenged the order dated 02.03.2020 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, South, Karachi in Execution No.07 of 2004 through Civil Revision No.28 of 2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that during pendency of the revision application, two miscellaneous applications were also filed i.e. one for calling report from Sindh Building Control Authority regarding implementation of the order dated 06.03.2001 and another application under section 151, C.P.C. for staying the revisional court's proceedings. Both the applications were dismissed vide two separate orders dated 22.03.2021 which are impugned in this constitution petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when these applications were filed, the learned revisional court passed an order to issue notice to the other side but when he reached at 11:00 a.m. for supplying copy of applications for notice, the Presiding Officer passed an order on both applications "advocate to be heard" and on the same date after hearing the counsel for applicant dismissed the applications. The order of the executing court was not available on record, therefore, on directions, the petitioner's counsel filed copy of order through statement which shows that vide order dated 02.03.2020, the learned executing court dismissed three applications, one filed under Order XXI, Rule 58, C.P.C. by the objector Gul Hameed Ghanchi (respondent No.3), another application for staying of execution proceedings filed by objector Riazuddin (respondent No.4) and third application under section 47 read with Sections 114 and 151, C.P.C. by the same objector Riazuddin (respondent No.4). The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that no application was filed by the petitioner and the order confined to three applications moved by the aforesaid objectors, however, he submits that in the concluding paragraph the learned executing court has given some findings that there is no impediment in the way of execution except application filed by objector who claims to be in possession of separate plot which hardly any nexus with the plot in possession of J.D. No. 1. Finally, the executing court passed an order for issuance of writ of possession through head bailiff against the JDs.
2. We raised a question with regard to the maintainability of this petition that the revision application is confined to the challenge of impugned order before the revisional court then why two miscellaneous applications were filed for calling the report or staying revision court proceedings. The application if any for calling alleged report from SBCA could have been filed in the executing court which was not done nor any such order was under challenge before the revisional court. So far as ground raised in the Revision Application, the petitioner may press all grounds in the revisional court and obviously after hearing the petitioner and other respondents, the revisional court will decide whether the executing court passed the order in accordance with law or not. In our outlook, there was no justification to file two miscellaneous applications which was seemingly tantamount to an attempt just to drag the proceedings and if the executing court has committed any error and acted beyond the sphere of judgment and decree, that should be obviously looked into by the learned revisional court whether writ of possession was issued in accordance with judgment and decree or not. For the purposes of lucidity, we would like to draw attention that basically the execution application was filed to satisfy the order passed by the Minister for Corporation, Government of Sindh as a last forum to deal with the revision under the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act which order is executed by the civil court in terms of provision of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925.
3. The revisional jurisdiction only applies to the cases involving illegal assumption, non-exercise or the irregular exercise of jurisdiction which can be invoked in the cases in which no appeal lies and the case was decided by subordinate court and such court appeared to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The scope of entertaining the revision application is required by exercise only when the applicant's case falls within the four corners of provisions of section 115, C.P.C. in which the court has only to see whether the requirements of the law have been duly and properly obeyed by the court whose order is the subject of revision and whether the irregularity as to failure or exercise of jurisdiction is such as to justify interference with the order. The court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot travel beyond the scope of section 115, C.P.C. and cannot go into the matters not relevant for the purposes of testing the jurisdictional error committed by the court below. Whereas Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be exercised to interfere with revisional order unless the impugned order is based on gross misreading or non-reading of evidence and the reasons given are B absolutely perverse, not supported by law or evidence or the material available on record.
4. The raison d'tre austerely that the revisional court had initially passed-an order on both applications to issue notice to the other side but on the same day passed another order "advocate to be heard" does not give any cause of action or trigger off any vested right to assail the order.
Fact remains that maintainability of such applications were of course crucial therefore the revisional court on the same day reviewed its order before sending notice and in its proper application of mind deemed it better to first hear advocate and after hearing reached to the conclusion that applications are not maintainable and finally dismissed the same. While doing so after hearing the learned revisional court fully followed the principle of natural justice and due process of law. Nobody can claim any vested right that on each and every application in routine the court is bound to issue notice to the other side on the contrary if the court deems or reckons that the application is not maintainable or having no worth or justification of issuing notice to the other side which in fact moved to prolong or drag the proceeding with ulterior motives, the same can be dismissed without notice to the other side in order to save precious time of court and expeditious disposal of the lis. We also feel no hesitation in our mind to hold that there was no justification by the petitioner to move two separate interlocutory applications in the pending revision application which had otherwise no nexus with the impugned order assailed through revision in which beyond any doubt, the petitioner may press all the grounds raised for challenging the impugned order passed by the executing court and obviously, the learned revisional court shall examine the legality and judiciousness of the executing court order impugned before it and decide the revision application on merits after providing ample opportunity of hearing to the parties. As far as this petition is concerned, we do not find any justification to interfere. The petition is dismissed in limine.