ABDUL RAZZAQ and others vs MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN
This civil revision petition arises from an interim order passed by an appellate court restoring an appeal and issuing notices while directing the makeup of court fee deficiency. The core legal question is whether an interlocutory order of this nature constitutes 'a case decided' so as to be amenable to revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order is purely interim and interlocutory in nature and does not fall within the ambit of 'a case decided', thereby rendering the revision petition non-maintainable. The key principle laid down is that the High Court lacks revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 unless the impugned order amounts to 'a case decided', though parties are at liberty to raise their objections before the forum where the matter remains sub judice.
- Does an interim order restoring an appeal and directing the makeup of a court fee constitute a case decided under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can the High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against an interlocutory order that does not decide any substantive rights?
- What is the remedy available to a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order passed by an appellate court when a revision petition is not maintainable?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, J.---States that the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed for non-deposit of process fee on 27.01.2018 which was restored on 07.02.2018. Simultaneously, the court through a separate order of even date issued notices to the petitioners (respondents therein) for 28.02.2018 and also directed the respondent to makeup the deficiency of the court fee, which order could not be passed as the appeal had already become barred by time and court could not direct the respondent to subsequently affix the court fee.
2. The order challenged by the petitioners is interim/interlocutory in nature and nothing has been decided that comes within the ambit of "a case decided" as envisaged in Section 115 of the C.P.C.
Reliance in this regard is placed on Mian Muhammad Luqman and 5 others v. Farida Khanam and another (1994 SCM R 1991) wherein it is held as under: "It is not denied by the respondents' learned counsel that unless it is "a case decided" the High Court has no jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. to deal with the matter on civil Revisional side. On the specific point; whether, the order passed in this case by the 'trial court which was impugned before the High Court did constitute a "case decided" the learned counsel, although having remained for considerable time hesitant to admit that it did not constitute "a case decided" ultimately failed to satisfy the Court that it did constitute "a case decided."
The same principle has been reiterated in the judgment reported as Nestle Milkpak Limited v.
Classic Needs Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and 3 others (2006 SCM R 21).
3. In view of the above, this revision petition would not be maintainable. However, as the matter is still sub judice before the appellate court, the petitioners may raise any objection before it to be decided on its own merits.
Cited by 3 cases
- Mst. Sughran Bibi vs Ghulam Muhammad and others 2021 CLC 1778
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Faqir Muhammad and 3 others 2020 PLD Lahore 737
- SYED ALI MANZAR ZAIDI etc. vs SYED NAFEES etc. 2020 CLC 369, 2019 PLJ Lahore 735