Ghulam Rasool vs Addl. District Judge, Bhalwal, District Sargodha and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an appellate decision by an Additional District Judge. The petitioner had originally filed a suit for partition of joint property, which was consolidated with a suit filed by the respondents and subsequently dismissed by the Trial Court. The petitioner challenged this dismissal by filing a civil revision before the Additional District Judge, rather than an appeal. Upon the dismissal of the revision, the petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, which was also dismissed. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to entertain the constitutional petition and whether the civil revision could be treated as an appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly dismissed the petition as not maintainable, noting that the petitioner failed to move an application to convert the revision into an appeal at the appropriate stage. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory appellate remedies.
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order where a statutory right of appeal was available but not pursued?
- Can a civil revision be treated as an appeal if no formal application for conversion is moved before the court?
- Does the High Court have the authority to entertain a constitutional petition when the petitioner has failed to exhaust the proper appellate forum?
ORDER
SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J.-- Lave to appeal is sought against the order dated 15.4.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner assailing the order of the Additional District Judge, Bhalwal was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner instituted a suit for partition of the joint property and during the pendency of the said suit respondents Nos. 3 and 4 also filed another suit. Both the suits were consolidated and decided by the Trial Court through a common judgment dated 19.4.1995 whereby the suit filed by the respondents was decreed and the petitioner's suit was dismissed. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhalwal, by filing civil revision, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.5.1996. Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court was invoked but the petition was dismissed vide order impugned .
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court's order was- challengeable in appeal before the District Judge but the counsel of the petitioner had mistakenly filed a civil, revision, which should have been treated as an appeal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the judgment impugned, we are of the view that no exception can be taken to the findings arrived at by the High Court. Unfortunately, no application was moved in this behalf to convert the aforesaid revision into appeal. Review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed because there was no error in the judgment of the High Court as the High Court has already held that such an order cannot be challenged by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court and thus the writ petition was not maintainable. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused.