rabia_786ffc@yahoo.

com

REVISION

DEFINITION

Revision is the power of higher courts to call for and examine the record of an inferior
court for the purpose of satisfying as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order recorded, imposed or passed by such inferior court and as to
the regularity of any proceedings of such court.

It is not a substantive right of the parties but is a mere privilege granted to them. The
higher court's interference while exercising revisional powers must be limited to
correction of errors of jurisdiction or non-compliance of any statutory provisions of law
and interference must not be on merits.1

REVISION IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

Section 435 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 describes the power of revision
granted to High Court or Session Court against the courts inferior to them.

According to the section the Higher Courts may:

1. Call for the record of inferior criminal courts and examine it for the purpose of
satisfying itself as to whether a sentence, finding or order of such inferior court is
legal, correct or proper and regular.
2. Direct that the execution of any sentence be suspended, and the accused, if in
confinement, be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of
the records. [S.435(1)]

This provision confers a kind of supervisory jurisdiction to correct miscarriage of justice

in matter coming up for adjudication before criminal courts. Usually revisional
jurisdiction is confined to the customs of law and not much interference is made with
finding of facts.

1
http://en.gouv.mc/Government-Institutions/Institutions/Justice/The-Court-of-Revision (accessed May, 9th
2014).

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

The power of revision may even be exercised during the pendency of the case because
the words "any proceedings before any inferior criminal court" are used in the section.

Example:

The higher court can exercise its power where there is a material error or defect in law
and procedure, misconception or misreading of evidence, failure to exercise or wrong
exercise of jurisdiction or where the facts admitted or proved do not disclose any
offence.2

REVISION IN CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

Section 115 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 mentions revisional powers of Higher
Courts. It states that the higher court may call for the record of any case which has been
decided by any subordinate court and to which no appeal lies. Revision is exercised if the
subordinate court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise
a jurisdiction so vested or has acted illegally or with material irregularity.

Section 115 applies only to cases involving the illegal assumption, non-exercise or the
irregular exercise of jurisdiction and it cannot be invoked against conclusions of law and
fact which do not affect the jurisdiction of the court.

The jurisdiction under section 115 is discretionary in nature but a court cannot arbitrarily
refuse to exercise its discretionary power and must act according to law and the principles
enunciated by superior courts. Powers under this section can be exercised upon the
application of any aggrieved against the decision or even suo motu by the court.3

Example:

Revision can be applied if the subordinate court entertains an appeal against non-
appealable order or entertains a suit where its jurisdiction to entertain is barred or passes
an order of which it had no legal authority.

2
Muhammad Mazhar Hassan Nizami, The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with commentary, (Lahore:
PLD Publishers, 2012), 587.
3
Aamer Raza A. Khan, The Code of Civil Procedure with commentary, (Lahore: Irfan Afzal Press, 2010),
337.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

WHO MAY LODGE REVISION PETITION

In criminal court

 A petition of revision on behalf of a person convicted by a criminal court or an

application for transfer shall not be admitted by a criminal court, unless it is either
submitted through the Jail authorities, or presented by the convicted person
himself, or by some person authorised by a duly stamped power-of-attorney to
present it on his behalf.
 And petition for revision by a complainant shall not be admitted unless it is
presented by the complainant or by some person authorised by a duly stamped
power-of-attorney to present it on behalf of the complainant.4

In civil court

 A petition of revision can be filed by the aggrieved person.

 It can also b filed by the person who may have any kind of interest in the decision
of the Subordinate court.

Both the criminal and civil courts can exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction.

COURTS WHICH ARE ENDOWED WITH REVISIONAL POWER

In criminal procedure code:

 Application of revision against the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate lies to

District Magistrate.5

4
MR. M. FARANI, HIGH COURT MANUAL, (Lahore: Law Times Publications, 1981), 189.
5
M. Anwar, Jhabwala's Lectures Notes in “The Criminal Procedure Code”, (Lahore: Law Book House
Lahore), 175.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

 Application of revision against Magistrate courts is filed in Session courts and if it

has to be sent to Additional session judge, then also it has to be filed in Session
court.
 And applications for revision against session court and all subordinate courts can
also be sent to High court. High court has original jurisdiction of exercising
revisional power.

In Civil procedure code:

 If the impugned order is passed by a court subordinate to the District court and the
value of subject-matter does not exceed the appellate jurisdiction of the District
Court, the District Court can exercise revisional powers.
 A District judge can also entrust a revision for disposal to an Additional District
Judge.
 In other cases, the revision will lie to the High Court and by virtue of sub-section
(3) of section 115 CPC, the High Court entertain a revision even in respect of a
case within the competence of the District Court.

WHEN RIGHT OF REVISION WILL BE USED?

The conditions under which the court can interfere in revision are the following:

a) There should be a case decided.

b) The decision should be of a court subordinate to the revisional court.
c) No appeal should lie to the revisional court from such decision.
d) The grounds for revision must exist.
If these conditions are fulfilled, the higher court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction
against the subordinate court's decision.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

GROUNDS FOR REVISION

In criminal cases:
The grounds on which the power of revision can be exercised in criminal courts are the
following two:

i. When the finding, sentence or order is illegal or improper.

ii. When the proceedings are irregular.

As a broad proposition it can be stated that interference may be justified:

a) Where the decision is grossly erroneous.

b) Where there is no compliance with the provisions of law.
c) Where the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on the evidence or it
is result of misreading or non-reading of evidence on record.
d) Where the material evidence on the parties is not considered.
e) Where judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.
f) If the lower court ignores facts and tries the accused of lesser offence, higher
court can interfere through revision.

In civil cases:
The grounds for revision mentioned in CPC are the following. The higher court
will exercise its revisional power if the subordinate court has:

I. Exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it:

a. Entertaining an appeal against a non-appealable order.
b. Entertaining a suit or appeal where the jurisdiction to entertain is barred.
c. Passing an order where it has no legal authority to pass it.
d. Inquiry into that which it has no jurisdiction to inquire.
e. Rejection of an objection that the suit is undervalued.
f. Determination on a plea of res judicata or limitation.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

g. Allowing an appeal in a case beyond the court's pecuniary jurisdiction.

II. Failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it:
a. Failure to adjudicate or decide a matter.
b. Refusal to pass an order on the ground that the court does not have
jurisdiction to do so.
c. Refusal to entertain a plaint, application etc.
d. Omission to give finding on a necessary issue.
e. Erroneous interpretation, resulting in failure to exercise jurisdiction.
f. Wrongly granting a stay.
g. Demanding improper court fee.
h. Refusing to review when a case was clearly made out.
III. Acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity:
a. Order not based on any evidence.
b. Order based on inadmissible evidence.
c. Order resulting in injustice or being arbitrary.
d. Deciding a case without giving reasons in the judgment.
e. Order consequent on the wrong allocation of the burden of proof.
f. Failure to follow a decision of High Court.
g. Deciding a case without hearing the parties.
IV. Exparte Decree: An order setting aside an exparte decree not being appealable, a
revision will lie there from if the conditions of section 115 CPC are satisfied. But an
application under Section 151 CPC to set aside the order setting aside a decree, is un
maintainable notwithstanding the fact that the application for revision has not been
made.6
The grounds for revision in both type of courts are almost similar and the distinction is
merely a matter of use of different terminology in both the codes i.e. Cr.P.C and CPC.

INQUIRY ORDER (S. 436 OF CR.P.C.)

6
Zafar Hussain Chaudhary, Law of Appeals, Civil and Criminal Cases, (Lahore: Law Times Publications),
2-3.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

The High Court or the Session Judge may direct the Judicial Magistrate, to make further
inquiry into any compliant which has been dismissed by a Magistrate either because there
was no sufficient ground for proceeding or because no process fees were paid within a
reasonable time.
The High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the District Magistrate to make further
inquiry into any proceedings in which an order of discharge or release has been made
under section 119. But the person against whom such direction has been issued must be
given an opportunity of show cause why such direction should not be made.

POWERS OF REVISION EXERCISED BY THE DIFFERENT

COURTS

I. High Court's power of revision (S. 439-442)

When is this power exercised?

In the case of any proceeding:
 The record of which has been called for by itself, or
 Which otherwise comes to its knowledge.

What powers can a High Court exercise as a revisional court?

The High Court may exercise any of the following powers:
1. Powers of an Appellate Court in disposing of appeal (S.423).
2. Suspension of sentence pending revision and release of accused (S. 426).
3. Arrest of accused while revising order of acquittal (S.427).
4. Suspend a sentence pending an appeal.
5. Release the appellant on bail.
6. Take further evidence or direct it to be taken (S. 428).
7. Set aside an order of discharge.
8. Quash criminal proceedings pending in a subordinate court.
9. Tender pardon to an accomplice or direct tender of pardon (S. 436).

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

10. May enhance the sentence. [Note: It can never convert an acquittal into a
conviction in the exercise of its Revisional Jurisdiction; though it can do so as a
Court of Appeal.]

What happens in case of difference of opinion?

When the judges composing, the Court of Revision are equally divided in opinion, the
case (with their opinion) shall be laid before another judge, and the judgment or order
shall follow his opinion. [S.439 (1)]

The High Court shall certify its decision to the lower court which shall pass orders in
conformity with such decision (S.442).

II. Sessions Judge's powers of revision (S.439-A)

1. In the case of any proceeding before a Magistrate, the record of which has been
called for, by the Sessions Judge or which otherwise comes to his knowledge, the
Sessions Judge may exercise any of the power conferred on the High Court by
Section 439.
2. An Additional Sessions Judge shall have and may exercise all powers of a
Sessions Judge under this chapter in respect of any case which may be transferred
to him under any general or special order of the Session Judge. (S. 439-A)
3. Session Judge can call for and examine the record of any proceeding before an
inferior criminal court within the limits of his local jurisdiction and suspend the
execution of any sentence and release the accused on bail or on his own bond
pending the examination of the record. (S.435)
4. He can also direct the District Magistrate to make further inquiry into any
complaint which has been dismissed under section 203 or 204(3) or into the case
of any accused who has been discharged (S.436).7

7
Zulfiqar Ali Shah and Azhar Ali Shah Bukhari, Criminal laws Digest, vol. I, (Lahore: Law Times
Publications), 465.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

District Magistrate's powers of revision

1. The District Magistrate may exercise all the powers of a Session Judge under
S.435. He may make further inquiry himself or direct it to be made by some
subordinate Magistrate.
2. On examining under section 435 or otherwise the record of any proceeding, report
for the orders of the High Court the result of such examination, and, when, such
report contains a recommendation that a sentence be reversed or altered, may
order that the execution of such sentence be suspended, that he be released on bail
or on his own bond.8

LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING REVISION PETITION

In civil cases:
The limitation period for filing revision application both in civil and criminal higher
courts is 90 days of the decision of the subordinate court.
The court is required to supply a copy of the decision within 3 days and time will start
running from the date the copy of the decree is supplied.
However, this limitation period does not affect the suo motu powers of the court.

In criminal cases:
There is no limitation period prescribed by law for revision in criminal cases. Article 181,
Limitation Act, has no application to criminal revision petition. Limitation for revision is
a matter of practice and not prescribed by statutes.

8
M. Anwar, Jhabwala's Lectures Notes in “The Criminal Procedure Code”, (Lahore: Law Book House),
176-178.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

According to the practice of the High Court, an application for revision in criminal cases
must be presented within 60 days and in exceptional cases the rule may be departed
from.9

BAR ON REVISION
Following are the situations due to which the power of revision is barred:
1. The petition for revision will not be entertained if another remedy is open to the
petitioner.10
2. If the party has already filed an appeal against the decision of the subordinate
court, it cannot apply for revision against the same matter.
3. If the limitation period of 90 days has lapsed and no application for revision was
filed within the limitation period without any sufficient cause, the party cannot
apply for revision.
4. If under Cr.P.C. an appeal lies and the party who could have appealed, did not
bring an appeal shall not be entertained with the proceedings of revision at its
(that party's) instance.11
5. High Court has been barred to entertain any proceedings in revision with respect
to an order made by the Session Judge under section 439-A, by virtue of sub-
section (4) (b) of section 439, Cr.P.C.
6. The High Court should not entertain an application for revision where the
applicant could have applied to the Session Judge and he had not done so.12
7. If there was such a minor mistake in the decision on account of which no
prejudice or injustice was proved to have been caused, there is no reason to
interfere in revision on a technical point.

9
Sheikh Abdul Halim, Criminal Practice, vol. III, (Lahore: Law Publishing Company), 3915.
10
PLD 1952 Bal. 22.
11
Clause (5), section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
12
PLD 1960 Kar. 42.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

CASES RELEVANT TO REVISION

(CRIMINAL CASES)

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

CASE NO. 1: 2012 P Cr. L.J734 [Peshawar]

Before Nisar Hussain Khan, J

SAHFAQATULLAH KHAN alias SHAUKAT KHAN

And 2 others---Petitioners

Versus

JEHAN ZEB KHAN and others---Respondents

Brief facts:

The petitioners, through instant criminal revision petition, seek annulment of the order of
additional session judge –I, Bannu, vide which their application under section 540,
Cr.P.C has been turned down.

The facts forming background of instant criminal revision petition is that petitioners are
facing trial in case registered under section 302/460/324/34 of P.P.C at Police Station
Cantt. Bannu. During the trial learned defense council put suggestion to the eye witnesses
with regard to the load shedding at the time of occurrence, which were denied. On
conclusion of prosecution evidence, learned defense counsel filed an application under
section 540, Cr.P.C for summoning of the official along with record of the Grid Station,
Bannu to prove defense stance that at relevant time of occurrence, there was load
shedding in the said area. This application was turned down by the additional sessions
judge-I. Petitioner filed petition to annul the order of the additional sessions judge-I but
the court dismissed the petition.

Reasons for dismissing the instant revision petition:

1) The reason behind dismissing the petition is that court was of the point of view,
“although section 540 of Cr.P.C, vests power in the trial court to summon any

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

person as witness at any stage of the case but if his evidence appears to it essential
for the just decision of the case”. But in this particular case to summon a witness
and record to substantiate plea of defense which has been raised for the first time
by the defense counsel during cross examination when there is no such inkling on
this record, there is no need of it.
2) And if this application is allowed then flood gates of such like applications would
break open. In each and on every case, the accused would seek summoning of
witnesses and record on every hypothetical question put by the defense counsel on
any prosecution witness, which has not been the intention of the legislature,
behind the enactment of section 540, Cr.P.C.
3) And in the end this is not evidence, which has come in to lime light, during
investigation or which has been abandoned by the prosecution. Rather it is
suggestion which is totally alien to the prosecution case, being relied upon by the
accused.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

CASE NO. 2: 2013 P Cr. L J 1040 [Federal Shariat Court]

Before Agha Rafiq Ahmed Khan, C.J.,

Muhammad Jehangir Arshad and Sheikh Ahmed Farooq, JJ

ALLAH RAKHA---Petitioner/Appellant

Versus

The STATE and others---Respondent

Criminal Revision No.84-L and Criminal Appeal No.194-L of 2006, decided

on 12th March, 2013.

Brief Facts:

The petitioner Allah rakha has filed this petition for the enhancement of punishment of
accused/respondent Qaisar Abbas who was charged with the offence of kidnapping and
zina-bil-jabir. Petitioner was of point of view that accused was wrongly convicted under
section10(2) instead of 10(3) of the Hudood ordinance, which provides life
imprisonment while accused was awarded punishment of 3 years and fine which is not
sufficient. This petition was filed by the petitioner when accused has been released from
the court after completion of his imprisonment.

Reasons for dismissing the revision petition:

1) The petition was dismissed by the court. Because “originally Federal Shariat
Court does not exercise revisional jurisdiction under A 203-DD of the constitution
of Pakistan for the enhancement of sentence of an accused, which has already
under gone his whole sentence” because it is against the principle of propriety as
well as violative of dictum laid down by Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

2) Lastly the solitary statement of the victim was inconsistent and it don’t inspire the
confidence of court and as there was no eye witness and and medical report also
show that the victim was habitual of intercourse so as result of benefit of doubt
the accused has given the punishment of 3 years.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

CASE NO. 3: PLJ 2012 Cr.C. (Lahore) 783 [Multan Bench Multan]

ATTA MUHAMMAD--Petitioner

Versus

STATE--Respondent

Crl. Rev. No. 453 of 2010, decided on 1.7.2011.

Date of hearing: 1.7.2011.

Brief facts:

 The petitioner Atta Muhammad s/o Muhammad Zaman Khan stood surety for the
accused Alamgir in case FIR No. 326/2008 registered at Police Station Saddar
KehrorPacca District Lodhran under Sections 302, 34 PPC by filing his bail-bond
to the tune of Rs.200,000/-. The accused Alamgir, however, jumped the bail
during the trial and he was declared a proclaimed offender.
 Vide order dated 06.05.2010, the learned trial Court/the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca forfeited the bail-bond where after proceedings for
the recovery of the forfeited amount of rupees two Lac were started.
 On 02.10.2011, an order was passed for issuing a non-bail-able warrant of arrest
against the surety/petitioner and the report of the DDOR regarding the auction of
the property of the petitioner was also called for.
 The petitioner through this criminal revision petition has assailed the order dated
06.05.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge forfeiting the bail-
bond as well as the order dated 02.10.2010, mentioned supra.
 The learned counsel for the petitioner have contended that the petitioner had stood
surety for the accused Alamgir on humanitarian grounds when he was assured that
the accused would never absent but subsequently the accused had jumped the bail
and in-spite of his best efforts, the surety could not find out the accused.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

 It is contended that the petitioner is quite an old/ailing person who cannot pay the
forfeited amount of Rs. 200,000/-. The learned counsel has prayed for the
reduction of the penalty amount.

 Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the petition
maintaining that the petitioner had stood surety for an accused in a heinous
offence and the said accused after jumping the bail is still absconding.

Reasons for granting revision:

The petitioner had stood surety for the accused Alamgir on humanitarian grounds when
he was assured that the accused would never absent but subsequently the accused had
jumped the bail and in-spite of his best efforts, the surety could not find out the accused.
It is contended that the petitioner is quite an old/ailing person who cannot pay the
forfeited amount of Rs. 200,000/-. The learned counsel has prayed for the reduction of
the penalty amount.
On the appearance of petitioner court found that he is quite an old man and he also
appears to be ailing. Reports are already there on the record that he is seriously ill.
so while accepting this revision petition partly the amount of penalty of Rs. 200,000/-
imposed by the learned trial Court is reduced to Rs. 30,000/- which if not paid by the
petitioner in the learned trial Court within a fortnight, shall be recoverable through
coercive measures.

Petition accepted.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

CIVIL CASES
RELEVANT TO REVISION

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

CASE NO. 1: SALAH-UD-DIN BHATTI Verses HABIB BANK ltd.,

Lahore.

FACTS:

1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned civil judge,
whereby he rejected the petitioner’s application under order xvi , rule 1,C,P,C. to
allow them to file a list of the witness and examine the witness named therein.

2. The circumstances under which this application was rejected are that the
respondent filed a suit for the recovery of rs. 50,341.97 against petitioners. The issue
was framed. The respondent closed his affirmative evidence and the case was
adjourned for petitioner’s evidence on which date the case was again adjourned to
enable the petitioners to produce their evidence. On second date too they failed to
head evidence and requested for an adjourn, which was granted subject to payment of
RS.15 as costs and the case fixed for another date.

3. The petitioners did not file list of witness as required by order xvi, rule 1, C,P,C
however, they moved an application and sought permission of the learned trail court
to file the list and examine the witness mentioned therein.

4. The reason assigned by them for not filing this list within time, was that they were
unaware of legal complications; the addresses of two witness could not be found;
these witness are bank employees and the respondent bank caused hindrances in the
ascertainment of their addresses by the petititoners.

5. The respondent contested this application and contested that ignorance of law was
no excuse and that was no cogent ground for condonation of the petitioner’s lapse in
not filing the application within time.

6. The learned civil judge took the view that the petitioners were represented by a
counsel and that therefore, it could not be said that they had no legal assistance. He

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

held that application did not disclose any sound reason for not submitting the list of
witnesses within the statutory period of seven days of framing the issues.

7. Accordingly, he disallowed the application and declined to examine the petitioners

witness.

8. The petitioners learned counsel relying on the heading of order of xvvi rule 1,C,p,c
urged that the list of only those witness has got to be submitted which a party may
have to summon through the court. His submission was that this provision is not
attracted if a party intends to produce the witness at his own responsibility.

9. It was urged that the refusal of the learned trial court to examine the petitioners
witness exposed them to hardship as they would be deprived of the opportunity to
lead evidence. The impugned order was also assailed on the ground that the learned
trail court did not exercise its discretion properly.

10. The respondent learned counsel on the order hand contended that the petitioner
did not comply with the mandatory provisions of order xvi, rule 1, C,P,C and that
there was no valid reasons for not filing the list of witnesses within time. He thus
canvassed the soundness of the decision arrived at by the learned trial court.

JUDGEMENT:

1. Order xvi, rule,1,CPC requires that within seven days after the framing of issues
the parties should present in the court the list of the witness whom they propose to
call either to give evidence or to produce documents. The court can permit
examinations of only those witnesses which are mentioned in the list. Permission to
call a witness not include in the list can be allowed by the court provided good cause
is shown for the omission. In the instant case, the reason given by the petitioners for
not filing the list within time are the ignorance of law and the non-availability of the
address of the two witness.

2. None of these grounds furnish a sufficient cause for the petitioners omission.
Ignorance of law cannot be entertained as a ground for non-compliance with law. As
regards the non-availability of the addresses of the witnesses, who are employees of

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

the respondent bank , the petitioners could have included their names in the list and
requested the court to give a direction to the respondent to supply their addresses to
the petitioners. The petitioners conduct smacks of negligence.

3. The plea that the learned trail court did not exercise its discretion properly is also
ill founded. In the circumstances of the case, the direction exercised by the learned
court below. In disallowing the application, is not violate of any principle of law.
Even otherwise improper exercise of discretion cannot be made a foundation of
interference by the high court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 4. For all these
reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision and dismiss the same with costs.

Revision Dismissed.

REASON FOR DISMISSAL OF REVISION:

The higher court's interference while exercising revisional powers must be limited to
correction of errors of jurisdiction or non-compliance of any statutory provisions of law
and interference must not be on merits. Improper exercise of discretion cannot be made a
foundation of interference by the high court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. So,
the revision was dismissed.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

CASE NO. 2: ADNAN QURESHI VERSUS CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY

DATE OF HEARING: 31.01.2012

FACTS:

1. The petitioner after joining service of the respondent as permanent workman by the
operation of law, his case covers under the provisions of Section 2(g) of Islamabad
Rent Restriction Ordinance & Industrial and Commercial Employment Standing
Order, therefore, does not require any formal order of regularization.
2. That the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of rule 15(2) of Accommodation
Allocation Rules,2002 as he being successor in interest after retirement of his father
for allotment.
3. The petitioner on refusal of such request by the respondent preferred suit before the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad coupled therewith prayer of temporary
Injunction. On dismissal of the said application moved for temporary injunction
under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC, the petitioner preferred Civil appeal, which
too was dismissed with same observation, therefore, he preferred instant civil
revision assailing both the orders passed by the courts below.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that flat in question was allotted to father of
the petitioner and he is residing in the same quarter with his father. The petitioner
was inducted in service against an existence vacancy of regular post prior to the
retirement of his father.
5. He argued that under accommodation allocation rules, 2002, rule 15 entitled the
petitioner to retain possession after retirement of his father and also entitle him for
allotment.
6. Counsel appearing for CDA argued that petitioner was not a permanent employ and
he retained illegally, thus had quarter allotted to his father for a longest period. His
father retired on 1.4.2010 ,while he was regularized on 23.1.2012 ,therefore ,said

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

period after excluding the period of 6 month provides his occupation as illegal being
trespasser defined at rule -2 of the accommodation rules ,2002 .
7. He further argued that the case of petitioner not following with definition of rule
15b(1) but it falls within the ambit of Rule b(2) ,which disentitle the petitioner after a
period of six months of the retirement of his father as Federal government servant
that facility could be avail once. He also referred rule 2g of Accommodation
allocation rule2002 defines the servant of federal government ,therefore the petitioner
is not entitled, rightly the injunction application was dismissed in the suit as well as
appeal preferred against the such order.
8. On the particular subject with the same circumstances, the Honorable Supreme Court
has a very clear view, given a verdict that in case of serving spouse or children of
retired government servant eligible otherwise become entitled for accommodation
within the period of six months could retain same accommodation and in case of
accommodation higher than his entitlement, they might apply in writing for
allotment.

Judgment:

1. So far concern of appointment of the petitioner against the existing vacancy of regular
post which subsequently regularized does not mean that e on getting such employment on
daily wages become eligible for allotment of the flat. The permanent employ is defined as
‘’a permanent workman is a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent
nature likely to last more than nine months and has satisfactorily completed a probation
period of three months in the same or other occupation in the industrial or commercial
establishment” and includes a badli who has been employed for the continuous period of
3 months or for 183 days during any period of 12 months , includes breaks due to
sickness ,accident , leave , lock-out ,strike ,(not being an illegal strike or lock-out) or
involuntary closure of the establishment and includes a badli who has been employed for
continuous period of3 months or for 183 days during any periods of 12 consecutive
months .

2. From the bare reading of above definition of permanent workman does not mean that
the petitioner is deemed to be regularized and there was no need to issue a formal order

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

of regularization. Classifications of the workman are neither conflict with Rule 2(g) nor
provide any favour to the petitioner as a Federal Government Servant eligible for
allotment of the accommodation. Therefore, Rule 2(g) of the Accommodation Allocation
Rules, 2002.

3. The petitioner cannot claim his right falling within parameters of 2(g) ibid referred
above. It is also explicitly clear that the post filled on daily wages work-Charge basis or
hired from contingencies or ad-hac basis are excluded being Federal Government servant
eligible for allotment of the Accommodation. The petitioner become a trespasser as
defined Rule 2(p) of the AAR, 2002.

4. That the category of his service and eligibility in classification “A” has not been denied
or opposed but the case of petitioner is only based upon the reason of his retention in
continuation after retirement of his father, which legal proposition is not correct.

5. I am fully convinced that present civil revision application having no merits to

succeed, as such, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

WRIT PETITION: PLD 2013 SUPREME COURT 225

PRESENT MIAN SAQIB NASIR J AND SH AZMAT SAEED JJ

MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND OTHERS….. PETITIONERS

VS

MST. ILYAS BEGUM AND OTHERS….. RESPONDENTS

Civil petition no 1947-L

Decided on 25-0ct-2012.

Relevant laws:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199 and Article 4.

Facts of the case:

1- The petitioners are the defendants of the suit for declaration initiated by respondent
no. 1 against them in which she claimed the ownership of a suit property and also
assailed some mutation (mentioned in plaint).
2- The petitioners contested the suit and joined issue with the respondent; the learned
trail court recorded the evidences of Plaintiff-respondents no. 1 and case was
initiated thereupon the case was adjourned by the request of the parties and the last
date was mentioned and specified thereon 3-7-2007.
3- The petitioners moved an application for the summoning some witnesses named in
the application through the process of the court and such process on the resistance of
the respondents were dismissed by trail court on 4-9-2007.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

4- The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order through a revision petition by using
article 199 of the constitution of Pakistan 1973 which was accepted vide order dated
28-2-2008 by the learned additional district judge on the reasoning that no one
should be knocked out by the mere grounds of technicality of law.
5- This order was again by the respondents challenged since they were not happy with
the finding of the learned additional district judge.
6- As has already been stated that the order has successfully been challenged by the
respondent no. 1 before the High court In its constitutional jurisdiction and by virtue
of impugned order, the learned High court has set aside the decision of learned
additional district judge and restored the decision of the learned civil judge which
was decided at prior stage.
7- The petitioners witnesses sought to be summoned by them were officials and were
supposed to produce the documents which can at very initial stage with the
importance of those evidences and documents can resolve the issue and real
controversy between the parties but they failed to mentioned their some witnesses
name which were at the same time very much important to be mentioned for solving
the issue in the case.
8- The court finally used its own discretionary power of granting time and opportunity
of summoning and presenting their witnesses which they omit to mention in their
plaint.
9- Even then they failed to present within the prescribed time by law

Judgment
The learned judge “Mian Saqib Nasir J” has decreed that as the petitioners have
dragged the respondents unnecessarily up to the court an wasted the precious time
of honorable court which is clear abuse of law and disrespect of the excellences at
the same time. the honorable court is of opinion that to impose cost of Rs.
25,000/- upon petitioners as a cost to be paid to the respondents which hardly

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

shall be an adequate compensation to him, for the agony he has suffered

throughout.
Resultantly this petition has no merit.

Grounds for Judgment

The learned counsel for the petitioner said the O. XVI, R. 1 of code of civil
procedure was not mandatory but its discretion of judge to allow the party to
represent and summon their witnesses after the trail has commenced which was
refused by judge.
Secondly in this rule the word “good cause’’ was not specifically given by them
and where the court in consideration has to give its “ it shall record the reasons for
doing so”.
By such omission of the party the court finally decided that as the petitioners have
dragged the respondents unnecessarily up to the court an wasted the precious time
of honorable court which is clear abuse of law and disrespect of the excellences at
the same time. the honorable court is of opinion that to impose cost of Rs.
25,000/- upon petitioners as a cost to be paid to the respondents which hardly
shall be an adequate compensation to him, for the agony he has suffered
throughout.
Resultantly this petition has no merit.

Petition dismissed.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPEAL AND REVISION

Appeal is a statutory right given to the In revision the applicant has no statutory
1. appellant which he can demand from right beyond inviting the attention of the
the Court either on a question of fact or court. The court has a discretion to
on a question of law or upon both. exercise its revisional power or not.

2. In appeal the court decides both on In revision it only decides or adjudicate

question of law and fact. on a question of law; but it may, for the
ends of justice, enter into question of
fact.
3. In appeal the court cannot enhance the In revision court can enhance the
sentence. sentence.
4. In appeal the higher court can convert In revision it cannot convert a finding of
an acquittal into conviction and vice acquittal into one of conviction.
versa.
5. The higher court cannot dismiss an In revision the higher court is not bound
appeal without giving the appellant or to hear the applicant or his pleader
his pleader a reasonable opportunity of except while enhancing any sentence.
being heard. (In this case the accused shall be heard
as of right.)
6. In appeal the higher court cannot direct It can tender pardon in the exercise of its
the tender of pardon. revisional jurisdiction.
7. In appeal, the higher court has In revision the higher court has wider
comparatively a narrower scope. scope. Any irregularity or illegality can
be cured by it.
8. There is only one procedure involved But there are two procedures involved in
in appeal. case of revision, i.e., preliminary and
final.

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

REMEDY FOR AGGRIEVED AGAINST REVISION

There is no revision over revision and similarly, no appeal or review over the revisional
decree or order. As the usual remedies are not available for the aggrieved, a situation of
injustice in certain cases might be created. In order to prevent any kind of injustice and
rigidity, the constitution provides a remedy in form of writ petition (writ of certiorari
here) to the party aggrieved of the decision in revision. The aggrieved party may file a
writ petition, against the court which passed the decision in its revisional jurisdiction, in
the High Court under Article 199 of the constitution of Pakistan 1973.

*****************

Writer is not the only author of this work.

 rabia_786ffc@yahoo.com

Bibliography

i. Aamer Raza A. Khan, The Code Of Civil Procedure with commentary, pg # 337, Irfan
Afzal Press, Lahore, 2010.
ii. Clause (5), section 439, The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
iii. http://en.gouv.mc/Government-Institutions/Institutions/Justice/The-Court-of-Revision,
9th May, 2014.
iv. M. Anwar, The Criminal Procedure Code, Jhabwala's Lectures Notes, pg # 176-178,
Law Book House, Lahore.
v. MR. M. FARANI, HIGH COURT MANUAL, pg # 189, Lahore Law Times Publications,
1981.
vi. Muhammad Mazhar Hassan Nizami, The Code Of Criminal Procedure 1898 with
commentary, pg # 587, PLD Publishers, Lahore, 2012.
vii. PLD 1952 Bal. 22.
viii. PLD 1960 Kar. 42.
ix. Sheikh Abdul Halim, Criminal Practice, Volume.III, pg # 3915, Law Publishing
Company Lahore.
x. Zafar Hussain Chaudhary, Law Of Appeals, Civil and Criminal Cases, pg # 2-3, Lahore
Law Times Publications, Lahore.
xi. Zulfiqar Ali Shah, Azhar Ali Shah Bukhari, Criminal laws Digest, Vol. I, pg # 465,
Lahore Law Times Publications, Lahore.

Writer is not the only author of this work.