1. ' SI. No,1 . Through this statement the respondent No, 2 wants that a purported amended title be accepted as the title for the petition. It is not for the respondent No, 2 to suggest as to how the title of a petition should be altered much less to submit an amended title without filing any application.
2. Not only that we are surprised to find that without the acceptance of the above statement the proposed title placed by the respondent No, 2 on the record has actually been inserted at the beginning of the file. Office would explain. Meanwhile the above statement is rejected, being in deviation.Of procedural requirements.
3. ' SI No,2. This petition was admitted to regular hearing by a learned Single Judge on 22-1-1996 and the operative part of the order is as under:-- "(2) The petitioners call into question a part of the judgment relating to Civil Revision No, 24/1995 passed by respondent No, 1 in a suit for administration of estate left by deceased Haji Mir Muhammad Gazdar. Initially suit for administration of estate was filed by some of the heirs of the deceased against other heirs as defendants to the suit and value of the share of the plaintiffs was fixed at Rs,24,000. After the decree an appeal was taken to the first appellate Court whereas a civil revision from order passed in execution proceeding was also filed before the same Court. By a consolidated judgment learned ADJ has taken the view that since after the adjudication, value of the suit has been raised it would fall beyond the jurisdiction of the District Court therefore decree holders may present their plaint before the High Court.
4. ' Learned counsel has referred to the case of Government of Sindh v. Abdul Majeed (1990 CLC 1891) dealing with the value of the suit for the purpose of appeal. Point raised requires examination.
5. Admit. Notice.
6. ' Statement on the face of it seems to be misconceived, however the same shall be considered at the stage of final hearing after notice to all concerned."
7. ' Subsequently on 4-8-1996 another Single Judge found that this was a D.B. Matter and issued directions to treat it as such. We have today heard both the sides. For the respondents, the respondent No, 2, who also happens to be an advocate, has addressed us. During the course of his arguments, he started behaving in a manner which is not in consonance with the norms followed in Courts. We, therefore, found necessary to question him in order to assess whether any action against him was called for. During the course of the questioning he apologized and we kept the proceedings in abeyance.
8. ' As to the merits of the controversy, in addition to what the learned Single Judge recorded on 22-1- 1996 it is pointed out that in an administration suit filed by the petitioners a preliminary decree was passed and against that decree the respondents had preferred an appeal, the appeal being dismissed. In course of time, according to Mr. Niazi A. Khaliq, the suit proceeded to the stage of a final decree and maximum court-fee of Rs,15,000 was paid. After the decree had been passed, pursuant to such decree, Execution No, 35/1993 was preferred. However, at that stage the executing Court dismissed the execution application on the ground that the decree was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. At this stage the decree holder, according to Mr. Niazi A. Khaliq, applied for recall of the order of dismissal of the execution and requested the trial Court to return the execution for being filed in the proper Court. On such application the trial Court observed that accounts being involved, the Court did have jurisdiction and could proceed with the matter of execution of the decree. Such transpired through order dated 11-7-1995. Again according to petitioners' version, at this juncture the respondents filed an appeal under section 96, C.P.C., questioning the final decree and that appeal was numbered as 80/1995. Simultaneously, the respondents also filed Civil Revision Application No, 24/1995 and that was against an order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on respondents' application, seeking re-call of revival of the execution proceedings. Both these matters, that is to say, the Civil appeal and the Civil Revision came up before the II-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karachi South, who by a common judgment/ the Civil Appeal as well as the Civil Revision, in the result setting aside the decree and remanding the case back and returning the plaint. It is such order and such judgment, which are questioned in this Constitutional Petition.
9. On principle and conventionally judgments or orders passed by Courts of competent jurisdiction could be questioned under Article 199 of the Constitution except in the rarest of cases and except where there is no remedy A provided by the Codes of Civil or Criminal Procedure. A very narrow path for invocation of the Constitutional jurisdiction in matters of the genus is provided for orders patently without jurisdiction or otherwise void or when the coram non judice rule is attracted, at the same time law postulating no appeal, revision, review or other alternative remedy.. We can clearly perceive that the remedies against the relevant order/judgment are provided by the Code. If a final decree was set aside in an appeal under section 96, C.P.C. a 2nd appeal on questions of law clearly lay. As regards the orders in the corresponding Civil Revision Application such, in substance, became only ancillary because the decree itself was set aside and the fabric which was woven around it should go with the decree. This being the legal position the petition is not maintainable.
10. Mr. Niazi A. Khaliq himself says that there already is an appeal pending, having been earlier on brought by the respondents in relation to the same suit. There is, therefore, no reason why another appeal in the foregoing context could not be brought. Needless to say that the petitioners could always have availed the right to take back the plaint itself for presentation to the proper Court if the petitioners were inclined to follow that course. Having said as much, we do not think that on account of non-maintainability this is a fit case for us to interfere. The petition is dismissed.
11. ' SI. No,3. This is an application filed by the respondent No,2 under section 476 etc., Cr.P.C. For prosecution of Mr. Niazi A. Khaliq himself alongwith his client, Mst. Bushra Begum, one Shajer Ali Hoti and quite remarkably any other person or persons involved. The respondent No,2 says that because no counter-affidavit has been filed whatever has been stated in the application should be deemed to be correct and the prosecution of the alleged accused be taken in hand. We do not think so. Serious allegations of this character have to be sifted and duly addressed before action under section 476, Cr. P.C. Can be set afoot. We, therefore, asked the respondent No, 2 to enlighten us about the facts which have generated the submission of the said application. He said that the persons on whose behalf Mst. Bushra Begum has, as Attorney, filed the above petition do not exist.
12. Mst. Bushra Begum, who is present before us maintains that she is a divorced wife of the late father of respondent No,2 and has been claiming rights for her children which are being thwarted. As against this respondent No, 2 says that such lady never entered the wedlock of his father and that she has been put up by his adversary, one Shajer Ali Hoti, to deprive the respondents of their lawful rights of inheritance. We are afraid that none of these matters have been established on the basis of any concrete evidence before us and if such is the case of the respondents, matched by a claim of the petitioners as above, none of this at the present stage qualifies for initiation of proceedings under section 476, Cr. P.C. This application, accordingly, is dismissed.