ABU NASR FAIZI Versus ABDUL AZIZ

ORDER

1. The contentions in this Revision Application are questions of facts which were found against the applicant concurrently by the two courts below. The learned counsel is unable to point out any misreading or perverse appreciation of evidence by the courts below. The learned counsel however, contended that the earlier suit filed by the respondent was allowed to by, withdrawn by the Court with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action on payment of costs to applicant who was defendant in that suit and as the costs were not deposited by the respondent before filing of the second suit the same was incompetent and as such the judgment and decree passed in the subsequent suit is null and void. The applicant had produced in this revision the order passed by District Judge Karachi allowing withdrawal of earlier Suit No. 47 and after going through the same I find that although costs were awarded to applicant while permitting withdrawal of suit to respondent but payment of such costs were not a condition precedent for filing of fresh suit. In such circumstances, if costs were not deposited before filing the fresh suit by the respondent it did not affect the competency of subsequent suit. No other point is raised. The Revision Application is dismissed summarily.

2. H . B . T . /J‑42/ K Revision application dismissed.