The present petition under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Multan, who partly accepted the appeal by modifying the finding on Issue No.7 to the effect that Tanveer lqbal shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000 and respondents Nose and 3 each shall pay Rs.3,000 to the petitioner.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that both the Courts below failed to decree the suit to the extent of Rs.24,000 as averred in the plaint although there was sufficient material on the file, in respect thereof.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the revision petition briefly stated are that 'the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.24,000 as damages for malicious prosecution against the respondents herein in the Court of Civil Judge, Multan, who vide his judgment dated 17-4-1993 decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner /plaintiff to the extent of Rs.5,000 against respondent No.1. However, the petitioner preferred the appeal against the aforesaid judgment before the learned District Judge, Multan, who modified the finding on Issue No.7 directing that respondent No.1 Tanveer lqbal shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000 to the petitioner while respondents Nos.2 and 3 Muhammad Jameel and Hanif each shall pay an amount of Rs.3,000 to the petitioner as damages.
4. It was alleged in the plaint that respondent No.1 lodged a criminal case against the petitioner and her sons Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Aslam under section 337-E(i), P.P.C. On the basis of self-suffered injury. After discreet probe the case was found to be false and consequently cancelled. On the relevant report submitted by the police, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 3-2-1992 whereby the petitioner and her two aforementioned sons were discharged from the case.
5. Respondent No.1 in spite of promulgation in the newspaper did not enter his appearance and hence ex parte proceedings were taken against him. However, the suit was contested by respondents Nos. 2, and 3 by filing a separate written statement wherein they denied the averments of the plaint.
6. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:---
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file this suit? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to file this suit? OPD-2.
(3) Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this suit? OPD-2.
(4) Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs? OPD.
(5) Whether the suit is based ors mala fide and has been filed to harass the defendants? OPD
(6) Whether the defendant No.3 is not a necessary party? OPD-3.
(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for recovery of Rs.24,900 for damages as prayed for? OPP.
7. While hearing a Revision Application under section 115, C.P.C., this Court has to satisfy itself upon three matters viz. That the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction, that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction and that in exercising jurisdiction the Court has not acted illegally. In the case of Shahzad Muhammad Umar Baig v. Sultan Mehmood and others PLD 1970 SC 139, it was held that section 115, C.P.C. Is meant primarily for correcting errors made by the subordinate Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction and not those errors which are made in their jurisdiction unless the jurisdiction is found to have been exercised fancifully or arbitrarily.
8. Reference can be made to Mst. Shumal Begum v. Mst. Gulzar Begum and 3 others 1994 SCM R 818, wherein it was observed that: "The revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Exercised by the High Court is attracted only in cases where the lower Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or it has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it or while exercising jurisdiction the Courts below have acted illegally or with material irregularity. It is, therefore, quite clear that the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the lower Court in proper exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the Court and upon consideration of the relevant evidence or record. The finding of fact by the lower Court could only be disturbed to revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. If it is found to be fanciful perverse or it has been arrived at by a process which had rendered the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the Court defective. In cases of misreading of evidence or non-consideration of legal evidence on record, the exercise of jurisdiction and power possessed by the Court is rendered defective, justifying interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The fact that the High Court on reappraisal of the evidence finds that the finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court is preferable to the finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court cannot justify interference with such finding in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. The First Appellate Court is the final Court in so far the findings of facts are concerned and such finding can only be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction by the High Court if they are arrived at by appreciation of evidence on record or due to no-consideration of legal evidence on record. In the present case the impugned judgment showed that the findings of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court was reversed by the High Court on reappraisal of the evidence and by substituting its own opinion for that of the first appellate Court without referring to any defect in the process of reasoning adopted by the First Appellate Court. This was not permissible within the scope of the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court."
9. It is pertinent to note that since the petitioner did not lead very cogent evidence in support of his claim on various counts hence the assessment of damages by first appellate Court was of approximate nature.
10. I have carefully examined the evidence on record so as to discover whether there was any material irregularity in the decision of lower appellate Court but none was found. Resultantly I dismiss the revision petition m limine.