1. ' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.---This appeal, by leave, has been preferred against the order of the High Court dated 18th January, 1996, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the respondent No,1 was accepted and the impugned order was vacated.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the suit land was transferred through registered sale-deed dated 28th February, 1994 in favour of appellants, herein. Mst. Zarina Begum, respondent, filed a suit for pre-emption in the Court of Sub-Judge, Kotli. An objection was raised by the defendants- appellants that as the share of 'Shamlat Deh' sold was not pre-empted, the suit is hit by principle of partial pre-emption. The trial Court framed a preliminary issue on the point and after hearing the parties, decided the same against the defendants-appellants. The defendants-appellants filed a revision petition against the aforesaid order of the trial Court in the High Court. During the pendency of the revision petition, the plaintiff-respondent moved an application praying for amendment in the plaint so as to specifically include the share in the 'Shamlat Deh' in the plaint.
3. The High Court, after taking objections of the opposite-party, allowed the amendment in the plaint on payment of Rs,2,000 and dismissed the revision petition. The said order of the High Court has been challenged before this Court as being violative of law.
4. ' The learned counsel for the appellants; Sardar Rafique Mahinood Khan, Advocate, has argued that the High Court has limited jurisdiction as revisional Court under section 115, C.P.C. The learned counsel has maintained that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is, inter alia, subject to the condition that the Court below should have passed an order which falls within the ambit of the expression 'case decided'. The learned counsel has strenuously argued that if the matter is not considered and decided by the Court in violation of the conditions laid down in section 115, C.P.C., the revision is not competent to the High Court. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the appellants challenged the order of the trial Court whereby the preliminary issue was decided against them. The High Court, instead of deciding the revision petition on merits, could not assume the role of the trial Court and allow the amendment of the plaint on In case reported as Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. Messrs application of the plaintiff-respondent. The learned counsel has argued that High Court after allowing the amendment to the plaintiff-respondent render revision petition as redundant. The learned counsel has relied upon the following authorities in support of his contentions:-- ' In case reported as Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan mood Khan PLD 1970 SC 139, it was observed that the powers under don 115, C.P.C. Were primarily intended for the correction of error made by subordinate Court in exercise of their jurisdiction and such powers cannot be exercised until and unless the condition laid down under section 115, C.P.C. Are satisfied.
5. ' In case reported as Umar Dad Khan v. Tila Muhammad Khan PLD 70 SC 288, it has been held that for exercising the powers vested in the High urt under section 115(c) of Code of Civil Procedure the order must tantamount to a 'case decided' and if it is not so, the revisional jurisdiction of be exercised merely because the order was not appealable.
6. ' Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent No,1, controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel or the appellants contending that the High Court while exercising, its revisional jurisdiction Which vests in it, can exercise all the powers which vest in it as a court of appeal. The learned counsel has argued that the question of amendment f the plaint was ancillary to the revision petition filed by the appellants and, thus, it cannot be said that there was no order of the trial Court with regard to be controversy which was to be resolved by the High Court. According to the earned counsel for the respondent, the High Court could allow the amendment of the plaint even if the revision petition was filed by the appellants against the order of the trial Court on preliminary issue. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following authorities in support of his contentions:- ' In case reported as Ilyas v. Jan Muhammad 1992 CLC 351, the facts of the case were that a pre- emption decree was passed in that case which remained intact on appeal to the Additional District Judge. The vendees preferred a revision petition before the High Court challenging the pre- emption decree on the ground that the land was sold from different survey number whereas in the plaint a different survey number had been mentioned and, thus, the decree of pre-emption was passed regarding the survey number which was not sold. During the pendency of the revision petition, another revision petition was filed before the High Court seeking the correction of survey number. The High Court consolidated both the revision petitions and disposed of the same by a single judgment whereby the amendment regarding correction of survey number in the decree- sheet was allowed.
7. ' Columbia Enterprises 1990 CLC 47, an application to amend the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act was submitted before the Appellate Court which was rejected observing that the same could not be allowed at that stage. The matter regarding amendment was again pressed before the High Court in revision petition and the same was allowed.
8. ' It may be stated here that the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the parties is not relevant to the controversy which needs resolution in the present case. In the instant case, the question is as to whether the High Court was legally competent to allow the amendment of the plaint when the revision petition was filed by the appellants against the decision on the issue of partial pre- emption by the trial Court. It may be stated here that it is one of the conditions precedents that for exercising the revisional powers 'there must be an order passed by the subordinate Court' which is alleged to be violative of any of the conditions laid down in section 115, C.P.C. In the instant case although a revision petition before the High Court with regard to the question of partial pre- emption was pending, yet there was no 'order passed by the trial Court' one way or the other with regard to the amendment of the plaint. Thus, in our opinion, the High Court had no jurisdiction to assume the role of the trial Court and allow the amendment of the plaint to the plaintiff- respondent. We are fortified in our opinion by the following authorities:--- ' In a Full Bench case reported as S. Zafar Ahmad v. Abdul Khaliq PLD 1964 Kar. 149, while dealing with the scope of revisional powers of the High Court, following observations were made by the Court:--- "20. It seems appropriate to take this opportunity to state clearly a few guiding rules of practice which are liable to be overlooked when dealing with particular cases:---
(a) Interruption of pending proceedings should be avoided as far as possible. If it is found necessary to stay proceedings, the case should be disposed of as a whole, instead of first having a full dress debated on the question of stay only.
(b) Since the power conferred by section 115, Civil Procedure Code, is meant for correcting errors made by subordinate Courts in relation to the existence or the exercise of their jurisdiction, no occasion arises to exercise it in relation to a matter which is within the discretion or authority of the subordinate Court concerned. This power should, therefore, never be exercised so as to usurp the discretion or authority of a subordinate Court.'
9. ' Again in case reported as Khushro S. Gandhi v. N. A. Guzder AIR 1970 SC. 1468, it was observed that the High Court while hearing revision petition against an interlocutory order has no jurisdiction to try any there issue arising in the case even if the parties conceded. The Court observed under:--- "9. The learned counsel for the appellants contends before us that the High Court had no jurisdiction to decide issue No,5 in a revision. He says that the subject-matter of the revision was the order of the Civil Judge dated November 28, 1956, and the High Court could not decide any other point and convert itself into an original Court. The learned counsel for the respondents tried to justify the decision regarding jurisdiction of the High Court under section 24, C.P.C. This section, inter alia, provides that the High Court may withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending in any Court subordinate to it and try and dispose of the same. We are unable to appreciate how the order of the learned Judge can be justified under section 24. He has not purported to withdraw any suit and try the same. What he has done is to try an issue arising in a suit in a revision arising out of an interlocutory order. It seems to us that the High Court, even if the parties conceded, had no power to decide the issue. But if we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the case to the Civil Judge to try it' according to law, the Civil Judge would feel handicapped in deciding the case properly because he will feel bound to follow the opinion given by the learned Judge on issue No,5, Under the circumstances we heard arguments on the issue."
10. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the above-mentioned two authorities and hold that the High Court was not legally competent to decide the matter of amendment of plaint one way or the other when no such matter was considered and decided by the trial Court.
11. ' Before parting with the case it may be observed that the revision petition filed before the High Court by the appellants was dismissed without giving any reason whatsoever. Perhaps in the estimation of the High Court, the permission of amendment of the plaint rendered, the revision petition as infructuous. As we have set aside the order of the High Court regarding the amendment of the plaint, it is just that the arguments on revision petition are heard afresh and same is decided according to law. Therefore, we remand the case back to the High Court to decide the revision petition filed by the appellants on merits. The amendment application filed by the plaintiff- respondent, if an occasion so arises, may be transmitted to the trial Court or the plaintiff- respondent may move fresh application in the trial Court.
12. ' The appeal stands accepted in terms indicated above.