' This petition in constitutional jurisdiction is against order, dated 22-4-1984 passed in revisional jurisdiction, by learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, dismissing revision, solely on the ground, that it was not presented in the manner and form as provided in Order XLIII, rules 3 and 4, C.P.C.
2. Ahmad Akhtar and others instituted a civil suit for declaration against Muhammad Latif and others in the Court of Civil Judge, Narowal. When the civil suit was pending, defendants in the civil suit, moved a petition under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. praying for the rejection of the plaint. Plaintiffs on the other hand, prayed for appointment of a receiver. Petition was dismissed on 14-11-1982 by learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Narowal. Against the interlocutary order, Muhammad Latif preferred a revision in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot. Relief in the revisional jurisdiction was refused on the ground that the mandatory requirements of rules 3 and 4, Order XLIII, C.P.C. have not been faithfully complied with.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that rule 4, did not apply in case of revision. Its scope was limited to appeals and other miscellaneous applications exclusive of the petition for revision filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the respondents however urged that rule 4 clearly applied and the Court was right in holding that the revision, in absence of the requirements outlined in rules 3 and 4, was not entertainable. Learned counsel also stated that the petitioner was possessed of an alternative remedy. He also suggested that the petitioner can still file a fresh revision petition after complying with the requirements of the aforesaid two rules.
4. This Court, - in Mst. Majidan Khanum v. District Judge, Vehari 1984 CLC 3270, has taken a view that Order XLIII, rules 3 and 4 do not apply to a petition in revisional jurisdiction. Honourable Judge if I may so with respect, has, in a very exhaustive and illuminating judgment highlighted distinction between appellate and revisional Court. I am in respectful agreement with views of my learned brother taken in aforenoted precedent case. I may not travel the same ground again. In the light of the decision of this Court in Mst. Majidan Khanum, the impugned order, is found to be clearly untenable. Rule as regards the alternative remedy is neither universal nor inflexible. Writ petition accordingly is allowed. Impugned order, dated 22-4-1980 is set aside and declared to be without lawful authority. Result is, that civil revision shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Additional District Judge, requiring its decision in accordance with law. Respondents at the hearing of revision shall be free to raise all legal objections available to them under law before the learned Additional. District Judge. Parties are directed to appear before learned Additional District Judge on 10-3-1985. No order as to costs.