Pakistan Case Law
1986 SCMR 1381

FAIZ MUHAMMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD FEROZE And Another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 SCMR 1381
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 808 of 1979 Regular Second
Date1986-03-16
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah
Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah
ResultAppeal refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal as incompetent and observed that the appeal lacked merit. The core legal question addressed is whether a Regular Second Appeal is competent before the High Court against a revisional order passed by a District Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition on the question of jurisdiction alone, holding that no second appeal is competent against a revisional order passed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that appellate jurisdiction in second appeal cannot be invoked against an order passed in revision by a District Court, though parties may pursue other available remedies before competent authorities if permissible.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a Regular Second Appeal is competent before the High Court against a revisional order passed by a District Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
Regular Second Appealrevisional orderjurisdictioncompetency of appealSupreme Court of Pakistan

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 1-8-1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Regular Second Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed as incompetent. On merits also some observations were made indicating that there was no force in the appeal.

2. Learned counsel has frankly conceded that the appeal was filed I against a revisional order passed under section 115 of C.P.C. By al District Court. That being so, no second appeal was competent before the High Court. We, therefore, dismiss this petition on question of jurisdiction alone and refuse to grant leave to appeal. With regard to the merits, if petitioners are so advised, they may seek remedy with the Consolidation Authorities, if otherwise, they have a good ease.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.