' This order will also dispose of Civil Revisions Nos, 95 to 103 of 1978 as common questions of law and fact would arise and furthermore the landlords in each case are alleged to be the plaintiff- respondents. Needless to say that in all the suits for ejectment and recovery of khakshora which gave rise to these revision petitions the defendant-tenants happened to be different persons.
2. It is conceded that Habibullah and Ikramullah Khan respondents 7 and 8 to these petitions brought separate suits for ejectment and recovery of khakshora against petitioner in each case and that during the pendency of the suits respondents 1 to 6 in each petition were impleaded as plaintiffs in pursuance of their request on 28-11-1977. This was not to the liking of the petitioners and they preferred revision petitions before the Additional District Judge who dismissed each petition on 25-1-78 holding that the impugned order in each case being appealable revision petitions before him were not competent. He also placed reliance on Fateh All v. Tassadaq Hussain and others (1).
3. The petitioners are still dissatisfied and they have moved the present petitions and Mr. Mohammad Latif, Advocate, who has appeared on their behalf submits that the impugned orders of the Civil Judge were appealable with reference to Order XLIII, rule 1(1) of the C. P. C. And such being the case the Additional District Judge instead of throwing the revision petitions as incompetent ought to have treated and disposed of- those petitions as appeals.
4. When it was enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether any request was made to the learned Additional District Judge for the treatment of the petitions as appeals he could not give any categorical statement. All that he did is that he referred me to an observation of the Additional District Judge which reads :- "The learned counsel further urged that the revision is not convertable to that of appeal and hence cannot be entertained and produced the authority PLD 1975 Lah. 1094 (Citation B)."
5. It will be seen that the above question will not support the contention of Mohammad Latif, learned counsel for the petitioners, as a matter of fact a request had been made before the Additional District Judge that revision be converted into an appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to The West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore v,. Messrs Omar Sons Ltd. (2), Guru Dasi v. Sarbananda Mahaldar (3) and Madhu Mian and others v. Rajaram Barai and another (4). The Lahore Authority is not going to help him for that was a case in which appeal was treated as revision. The Calcutta authority is also not going to help him for in that case revision was allowed to be converted on a request made in that behalf after that the Court was satisfied that requisite court-fee for memorandum of appeal had already been paid. As far as the Dacca authority is concerned there also was a specific request by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition be treated as memorandum of appeal and again court-fee actually paid was in excess of the court-fee that would have been required to be paid in case of an appeal.
7. There is no dispute with the proposition that a revision will not where an appeal lies and the matter in this behalf stands concluded by and
(1) PLD 1975 Lah. 1094 (2) PLD 1970 Lah. 398
(3) PLD 1961 Dacca 243 (4) A FR 1943 Cal. 177 authority of the Supreme Court as in Municipal Committee, Bahawalpur v. Sh. Aziz Elahi (1). That for the conversion of a revision into an appeal there should be a specific, application, is a proposition supported by a Division Bench judgment as in Ghulam All v. Nawaz Ali and 2 others (2).
8. Be that as it may, for the disposal of the present petitions a mere reference to subsection (4) of section 115, C. P. C. Shall be conclusive. The subsection reads :- "No proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under subsection (2) by the District Court."
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the order of the Additional District Judge has not disposed of the petition on merits and all that he has done is that he has rejected the revision petition as incompetent. This argument conveniently overlooks that jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge under subsection (2) ibid was invoked and that his impugned order is certainly "an order made under subsection (2) by the District Court".
10. On the view of the matter that I take the revision petitions are dismissed as incompetent with costs. Pleader's fee Rs, 100 in each case.
(1) PLD 1970 SC 506 (2) PLD 1975 Kar. 1090