IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
AT LARKANA
Present:
Shamsuddin Abbasi, J.
Agha Faisal, J.
C.P D-171 of 2024 : Himath Ali Tunio and others vs.
M/s. Pakistan Telecommunication and others.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Barejo, Advocate
For Private Respondents : Mr. Zamir Ali Shah, Advocate
For official Respondents : Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional
Advocate General, Sindh.
Date of hearing : 23.04.2024
Date of Order : 23.04.2024
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. This writ petition has been preferred assailing an order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge Larkana in Civil Revision Application 27 of 2023 (“Impugned Order”).
The Impugned Order had set aside an order dated 25.03.2023 passed by the 2nd Senior Civil Judge Larkana rendered in an application per Order VIII rule 9 CPC. While the petitioners’ counsel remained unable to identify any jurisdictional / patent infirmity in the Impugned Order, it is imperative to eschew such deliberation presently and advert to Section 115(4) CPC, which precludes the agitation of such matters before the High Court.
Section 115(2) CPC provides empowers the District Court to exercise powers of revision in respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate to such District Court. Section 115(4) CPC clearly explicates that no proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under subsection referred to supra by the District Court. Prima facie there is a statutory bar upon further escalation in the High Court of a matter determined per the aforementioned provision of the law.
The Supreme Court observed in Arif Fareed[1] that the objective of Article 199 of the Constitution is to foster justice, protect rights and correct any wrongs, for which, it empowers the High Court to rectify wrongful or excessive exercise of jurisdiction by lower courts and address procedural illegality or irregularity that may have prejudiced a case. However, it is emphasized that the High Court, in its capacity under Article 199, lacks the jurisdiction to re-examine or reconsider the facts of a case already decided by lower courts. The judgment in HamadHasan[2] deprecated such a tendency in no uncertain words and maintained that it was impermissible for Constitutional jurisdiction to be substituted for revisionary jurisdiction.
No jurisdictional defect has been demonstrated by the learned counsel in the Impugned Judgment, therefore, no case for invocation of writ jurisdiction is made out. Even otherwise, invocation of writ jurisdiction in view of the bar contained in section 115(4) CPC would prima facie disturb the conclusiveness ascribed to the finality of orders per section 115(2) CPC and unwarranted interference could be construed as defeating manifest legislative intent.
In view hereof, this petition is found to be misconceived, hence, dismissed.
Judge
Judge