KHALIL AHMED and another vs Syed HASSAN SHAH BUKHARI and others
This revision application was directed against an order passed by the VIIIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (South) in a civil suit involving a subject-matter value of Rs. 24,000. The core legal question addressed by the Sindh High Court was whether a revision application against an order of a subordinate court, where the subject-matter value falls within the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court, should be filed directly in the High Court or the District Court in light of concurrent revisional jurisdiction and the principle of institution in the court of lowest grade. The Court held that since the District Court possesses concurrent revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and section 15 mandates that proceedings be instituted in the court of lowest grade having concurrent jurisdiction, the revision application ought to have been filed before the District Court. Consequently, the High Court ordered the return of the memorandum of revision application along with its enclosures to the counsel for the appellants for presentation before the competent District Court.
- Whether a revision application against an order of a subordinate court should be filed in the District Court when both the High Court and the District Court possess concurrent revisional jurisdiction?
- Does the principle embodied in section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require proceedings to be instituted in the court of lowest grade?
- What is the procedure to be followed by the High Court when a revision application is erroneously filed directly instead of before the competent District Court having concurrent jurisdiction?
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 15, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' This Revision Application has been preferred against the orders passed by the Court of VIIIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (South) in Suit No, 757 of 1992 on an application under section 151, C.P.C.
2. The value of the suit before the lower Court is shown to be Rs,2A,000 only thus in normal course under the provisions of Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, any order passed in the suit would be appealable before the District Court. As regards the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. Pertaining to Revision Applications, it may be observed that by virtue of amendments brought to this Section vide Ordinance XII of 1972, subsection (2) was added to section 115, C.P.C. Under subsection (2) it was provided that the District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by subsection (1) of the same section. Thus the District Court was also invested with the concurrent jurisdiction to hear the Revision Application against the orders passed by the subordinate Courts in those cases from where the amount and value of the subject-matter does not exceed the limit of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court, subsection (3) and subsection (4) of section 115, C.P.C. Further provide that no second Revision Application would be preferred in case one Revision Application has been decided by the District Court. A reference to section 15, C.P.C. Would show that the principle embodied therein is that where more than one Court have concurrent jurisdiction, the action/proceedings should be instituted in the Court of lowest grade. In these circumstances the present Revision Application should have been instituted before the District Court. Reliance may be placed on the case of Karachi Building Control Authority v. Muhammad Arif Qureshi Advocate 1992 CLC 1904 and the case of Ghulam Rasool v. Ahsan Ali RA. No, 72 of 1992 in which order was passed on 24-6-1992.
3. ' Accordingly it is ordered that memorandum of the Revision Application alongwith all enclosures be returned to the learned counsel for the appellants for presentation before the competent Court as observed above. The office will prepare and issue such Certificate.
Cited by 4 cases
- Syed Najam Raza Naqvi Versus Mst. Badar Jahan 2026 YLR 1023
- Arthur Lawrence (Private) Ltd vs Messrs Actlaw through Patron 2020 PLD Sindh 129
- Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUNAS ARVI vs KHALIDA BIBI and another 2014 PLJ AJ&K 116
- Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUNAS ARVI vs KHALIDA BIBI and another 2015 YLR 575