1. This civil revision is filed against the order of VIth Additional District Judge, Karachi East dated 30-4- 1997 passed in Appeal No. 12 of 1996 dismissing of his Suit bearing No.674 of 1994 by III-Senior Civil Judge Karachi East by rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C vide order dated 24-1-1996.
2. Perusal of the record shows that the issues involved were determined in an earlier point of litigation between the same parties with respect to their respective claims and inherited share in Quarter No. 1446 Block-5, Shah Faisal Colony, Karachi after death of its owner Naseem Khan son of Qameruddin on 14-7-1983 originating with Suit No.2428 of 1984 filed in the Court of XXIV, Civil Judge at Karachi renumbered as Suit No.633 of 1986 decided m favour of respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by the decision the present applicant preferred a Civil Appeal bearing No.99 of 1992 decided by the learned Vth Additional District Judge Karachi East vide order dated 28-11-1993. Execution proceedings were instituted bearing Execution No.3 of 1994 before the III-Senior Civil Judge Karachi East. It was during the pendency of the proceedings that respondent No. 1 obtained letter of Administration from the Court of District Judge Karachi East being S.M.A. No. 268 of 1994. An appeal filed against grant of Letter of Administration in favour of respondent No. 1 registered as Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.6 of 1996 and same was dismissed vide order of this Court dated 19-5-1996.
3. It was during the pendency of these proceedings that the present applicant instituted Suit No.674 of 1994 in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge Karachi East resting with the present revision application. Mr. Abdul Karim Siddiqui learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that in view of the repeated concurrent findings of fact the present civil revision application not involving any point of law merits no consideration. The view finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Kanwal Nain v. Fateh Khan PLD 1983 SC page 53 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under:-- "Clearly the decision of the learned Single Judge, impugned in this appeal, turns on the determination of a question of fact. As pointed out by this Court in Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan (PLD 1970 SC 139), revisional power under section 115, Civil Procedure Code are primarily intended for correcting errors made by subordinate Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction. Also ordinarily erroneous decisions of fact are not revisable, except in cases where the decision is based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence or is so perverse that grave injustice would result therefrom. In this regard I am tempted to cite here the illuminating observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Venkatagiri v. H.R.E. Board, Madraa (PLD 1949 PC 26), which has been followed by this Court in Umar Dad Khan v. Tila Muhammad Khan (PLD 1970.SC 288):-- "In Mohund Bhagwan Ramanuj v. Khetter Moni Dassi ICWN 617 the High Court of Calcutta expressed the opinion 'that subsection (c) of section 115, -C.P.C., was intended to authorise the High Courts to interfere and correct gross and palpable errors of subordinate Courts, so as to prevent gross injustice in non-appealable cases. This passage was dissented from by the Calcutta High Court in Enat Mondul v. Balaram Dey 3 CWN 581, but was cited with approval by Lord Willams, J. In Gulabchand v. Kabiruddin 58 Cal 11 = AIR 1931 Cal.
27. Their Lordships can see no justification for any such view; it would indeed be difficult to formulate any standard by which the degree of error of subordinate Courts could be measured. Section 1.15 applies only to cases in which no appeal lies, and, where the Legislature has provided no right of appeal, the manifest intention is that the order of the trial Court, right or wrong, shall be f final. The section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters, (a) That the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction that Court has not acted illegally, that is; in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however, profoundly from the conclusions of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law. No such matters arose in this case, and the order of the High Court upon the petition was without justification. "
4. The above enunciation of the scope of the revisional powers vesting in the High Court clearly shows that, no interference was called for in this case and in upsetting the conclusion of the Courts below on the question of fact by means of a re-examination of the evidence in revision the High Court unfortunately overstepped the limits of its jurisdiction".
5. This case was taken up earlier, in the morning and this is the third round but no one has appeared for the applicant. Accordingly as no case under section 115(a)(b) or (c) is made out this revision application is dismissed with costs in favour of respondent No. 1.