 |
| Appeal & revision |
⚖️ ہائی کورٹ میں دوسری
Revision
قابلِ سماعت نہیں:
2026 CLC 869
📌 مقدمے کا پس منظر
ٹرائل کورٹ نے
Ex-Parte
کارروائی ختم کرنے کی درخواست مسترد کر دی۔ اس حکم کے خلاف ڈسٹرکٹ کورٹ میں اپیل دائر کی گئی، جس نے ٹرائل کورٹ کا فیصلہ ختم کر دیا۔ درخواست گزار نے اس کے بعد ہائی کورٹ میں
Revision
دائر کر دی۔
⚖️ ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ
Section 115(5) CPC
کے تحت
Section 104 CPC
کے تحت اپیل میں دیے گئے حکم کے خلاف مزید
Revision
قابلِ سماعت نہیں۔
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اگر ڈسٹرکٹ کورٹ میں دائر اپیل کو Revision
بھی تصور کیا جاتا، تب بھی
Sections 115(3) اور 115(4) CPC
کے تحت دوسری
Revision
کی اجازت نہیں تھی۔
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ صرف یہ مؤقف کہ ڈسٹرکٹ کورٹ میں
Appeal
کے بجائے
Revision
دائر ہونی چاہیے تھی، درخواست گزار کو ہائی کورٹ میں دوسری Revision
دائر کرنے کا حق نہیں دیتا۔
🔑 قانونی اصول
اس فیصلے سے واضح ہوتا ہے کہ ایک ہی معاملے میں Revisional jurisdiction
کو دوسری مرتبہ استعمال نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ اگر ماتحت عدالت کے حکم کے خلاف اپیل یا
Revision
کا فیصلہ ہو چکا ہو تو قانون کی مقررہ پابندیوں کے باعث اسی معاملے پر مزید
Revision
قابلِ سماعت نہیں ہوگی۔
🏛️ نتیجہ
ہائی کورٹ نے درخواست گزار کی
Revision
کو قابلِ سماعت نہ سمجھتے ہوئے
Office Objection
برقرار رکھا۔
حوالہ: Ghulam Abbas v. Ghulam Haider, 2026 CLC 869 (Lahore)
🔖 Must read judgment.
2026 CLC 869
[Lahore]
Before Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, J
GHULAM ABBAS-Petitioner
Versus
GHULAM HAIDER ---Respondent
D. No. 111493 of 2025, decided on 12th September, 2025.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
Ss. 104, 115(4) & 115(5)---Order passed by Trial Court incompetently assailed---District Court passing decision thereon-High Court, revisional jurisdiction of---Scope-Petitioner filed Civil Revision before High Court to challenge the order passed by District Court, whereby the appeal filed by respondent was allowed with the result that order passed by the Trial Court (declining the application for setting-aside ex-parte proceedings initiated against the respondent) was set-aside---Grievance of the petitioner was that against order dismissal application for setting-aside ex-parte proceedings passed by the trial court, only remedy of revision was vas maintainable, however, without any legal justification, appeal was entertained and same was decided, hence, he was prejudiced and present revision petition was maintainable---Validity-Subsection (5) of S.115, C.P.C. provides that against any order passed in appeal under 5.104, C.P.C., revision petition is not maintainable---Although the appeal filed by the respondent does not mention under which Section the same had been filed, admittedly it was not an appeal against decree under S.96 of the C.P.C. and at the most could be treated as an appeal under S.104, C.P.C.--Whether appeal before the Additional District Judge was competently filed or not, the same had been decided as an appeal against order and not by converting the same into a revision-Therefore, in terms of subsection 5 of 5.115, C.P.C. remedy of revision was not available against the said order The grievance raised by the petitioner (that as the appeal was incompetently filed and instead a revision should have been filed before the revisional/appellate court, therefore, prejudice had been caused to the rights of the petitioner)was not sustainable for the reason that if revision had been filed before the Additional District Judge or the appeal had been converted into a revision, then further revision before this /High Court would not have been maintainable in view of subsections (3) and (4) of S.115, C.P.C. which barred second revision in the proceedings-Therefore, whether the Additional District Judge decided the appeal or revision against the order, further revision was not maintainable before this/ High Court---Hence, the office objection was sustained.