Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 12(2), 115, 151, 114, ORDER XLVII, ORDER VII Rule 11, ORDER XXIII Rule 1, ORDER XXIII Rule 3, ORDER XXXIX Rule 2(3)

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 52

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 204, 187

SUMMARY Section 115 CPC Power of the Court: 1. The controversy essentially pertains to the fate of the decree in Suit No. 32/1-A, which was contingent upon a decree that has since been nullified and whose reversal has attained finality. This Court is vested with revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC in two distinct capacities: first, upon invocation by an aggrieved party, which is subject to the limitation of ninety days as provided in the second proviso to Section 115(1); and second, in the exercise of suo motu revisional powers, which are supervisory and not circumscribed by any prescribed limitation period. The scope of such powers has been elaborately discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Province of Punjab through District Officer, Revenue, Rawalpindi and others v. Muhammad Sarwar (2014 SCMR 1358), wherein it was held that Section 115(1) CPC confers two distinct jurisdictions: one exercised upon an application by an aggrieved party and the other exercised suo motu by the Court. The limitation of ninety days applies only to revisions filed by an aggrieved party and does not fetter the Court’s inherent supervisory jurisdiction to rectify jurisdictional errors or material irregularities committed by subordinate Courts. The apex Court further reiterated that where the revisional jurisdiction is invoked by a party, the statutory limitation must be strictly adhered to; however, when the Court itself acts to correct a manifest illegality or jurisdictional defect, such power is not constrained by limitation. In the present case, where the decree in Suit No. 32/1-A is demonstrably contingent upon a decree that has been set aside with finality, and where material facts were not brought to the notice of the Court at the relevant time, this Court is competent—either upon application under Section 12(2) CPC or in exercise of its revisional and supervisory jurisdiction—to examine the legality and sustainability of the impugned decree. 2. Once this Court arrives at the conclusion that the decree passed in Suit No. 32/1-A was wholly founded upon the ultimate outcome of Civil Suit No. 381/1—and that the said…