IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT,LARKANA.

 

Civil Revision S-111 of 2021:        Riaz Ahmed Soomro &Others vs.

                                                            Zamir Ahmed Bhatti &Others

 

For the applicants                :           Mr. Muhammad Saleem Mangi, Advocate

                                                           

Date of hearing                    :           20.01.2022

 

Date of announcement      :           20.01.2022.

 

O R D E R

Agha Faisal, J.(1) Deferred. (2) Granted, subject to all just legal exceptions. (3) The applicantsfiled a suit before learned 4th Senior Civil Judge, Larkana seeking the following relief:

 

(a)    That this Honourable Court may be pleased to declare that the plaintiffs are Members of Committee of Masjid Jeelani situated at Meerani Muhalla Larkana and the defendant No.01 is not Mutawali and his Certificate is false, managed and bogus and liable to be cancelled and he has no right, title or locus-standi.

 

(b)    That, this Honourable Court may be pleased to Grant Injunction against defendant No.01 not to interfere with the matters of Masjid directly or indirectly and the defendants No.05 & 06 be directed not to cause harassment to the plaintiffs…

 

2.         The plaint in the said suit was rejected vide order dated 02.8.2021. The operative part of the findings is reproduced herein below:

 

“03.          Plaintiffs have annexed with the plaint photocopies of Faisla, application moved by plaintiff No.3 to DIG, Larkana, faisla of Madarsa Dar-ulUloom Rizvia wa-Jamia Masjid Jilani dated 10.07.2021, Certificate of Registration of Madarsa Darul Uloom Rizvia wa Jamia Masjid Jilani, Meerani Muhalla Dokri issued by Provincial Assistant Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, Larkana on 7th January 2013 and Certificate of Registration of Madarsa Jamia Arabia Islamia Ghosia Murtaza Jillani and Masjid Jamia Ghosia Murtaza Jillani Sharif, Jillani Muhalla Dokri issued by Provincial Assistant Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, Larkana on 16¢4 February 2015. None of these certificates bears name of Mutawali or Muhtamam. Other documents pertain to year 2021. Plaintiffs have failed to bring any document on the record in order to show that the father of plaintiff No.3 was Pesh Imam of the Masjid and he reconstructed the same and/or he was Mutawali of the Masjid. In absence of any proof in this regard, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to bring this suit. Consequently, the plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Decree to follow.” 

3.         An appeal was heard before the Court of learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Larkana and the same was also dismissed.  The operative findings are reproduced herein below:

           

            “Heard lamed counsel for both parties at length and perused the contents of F.C Suit No. 1143/2021 filed by Riaz Ahmed Soomro and others against Zamir Ahmed Bhatti and others, he has filed suit for Declaration, Cancellation and Permanent Injunction as well as perused the contents of the appeal and documents available on the record, which reveal that the appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit before the learned trial court asserting in the plaint of the said suit, that one Hafiz Muhammad Ibraheem, the father of the appellant/plaintiff No.3, Bakhat Ali was Pesh Imam of Masjid Jilani Sharif situated in Dokri city and after his demise, the respondent/defendant No.1, Zamir Ahmed Bhatti who is primary school teacher claimed as Mutawali of the said Masjid but in fact he is one of tenant of the shops of the said Masjid and in order to usurp the rent of the shop as well as to receive the rent of the others shops he is claiming himself as Mutawali on the basis of false certificate, therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaration that they may be declared as Members of Committee of aforesaid Masjid and further sought declaration that certificate of the respondent/defendant No.1 is false, but the appellants/plaintiffs with their plaint have not filed any authentic document in support of their claim, therefore, | am of considered view that the learned trial court is justified by observing that in absence of any proof /authentic document, the appellants/plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit as such the learned trial court rightly rejected the plaint of the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order VIl Rule 11 CPC vide order dated 02.08.2021 which requires no interference, therefore, the point No.1 is replied as negative.

 

Point No.02.

 

9. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the humble view that the leaned trial Court has rightly passed impugned Order and decree dated 02-08-2021 which is very much in accordance with law, as a result whereof, I find no merits in the present Civil Appeal, hence, the same hereby is dismissed being meritless. There is no order as to costs.”

4.         Applicants, aggrieved by the aforementioned judgments,have filed this civil revision. Learned counsel submits that the record was not properly appreciated by the learned Courts and the judgments were passed in a perfunctory manner.

5.         Heard and perused. The ambit of civil revisions is circumscribed by section 115 CPC and it is apparent that the same is not a subsequent forum of statutory appeal. Unless one or more of the ingredients of Section 115 CPC are apparent, a revision does not ordinarily lie.

6.         The original judgment as well as judgment in appeal appear to have considered the record and the law and no infirmity in respect thereof has been identified to this Court.

7.         This Court has considered the contentions of the applicant and has noted the inability of the learned counsel to cite a single ground based upon which the jurisdiction of this Court could be exercised under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. There is no suggestion that the impugned judgments are either an exercise without jurisdiction or a failure to exercise jurisdiction or an act in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with any material irregularity.

8.         It is trite law[1] that where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction had exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion had been judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same was contrary to law or usage having the force of law.

9.         It is the considered view of this court that the applicant has remained unable to demonstrate any infirmity with the respective judgments, meriting interference in revision under Section 115 C.P.C, therefore, this revision is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

                                                                                    JUDGE


[1]Per Faqir Muhammad Khokhar J. in Naheed Nusrat Hashmi vs. Secretary Education (Elementary) Punjab reported as PLD 2006 Supreme Court 1124; Naseer Ahmed Siddiqui vs. Aftab Alam reported as PLD 2013 Supreme Court 323.