Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

P L D 1995 Peshawar 135 Civil Revision No.335 of 1994, decided on 2nd November, 1994. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of---Essentials---Provision of 5.115, C.P.C. would apply only to cases involving illegal assumption, non-exercise or irregular exercise of jurisdiction; it could not be invoked against conclusion of law or fact which had not in any way affected jurisdiction of Court---No matter, however, erroneous, wrong or perverse, decision might be, either on question of fact or law, unless matter of jurisdiction was involved therein, Court would not exercise its revisional jurisdiction---Where Court has jurisdiction to decide any matter one way or the other, erroneous conclusions of law and fact could only be corrected in appeal---Revision would not be competent on such ground---High Court would interfere where subordinate Court had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it; had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it; or had acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity-- Where such conditions were not satisfied, High Court would not interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction---Revisional jurisdiction being discretionary in nature, High Court would not interfere in revisional jurisdiction to correct every irregularity except where great injustice or hardship would result on account of its non-interference---Plaintiffs conduct in filing successive suits against defendants in violation of legal requirements had disentitled him to invoke discretionary jurisdiction of High Court. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----- ----O. II, R.2, O.VII, R.11 & 5.115---Rejection of plaint---Plaintiffs earlier suit was dismissed on legal and factual plane---Plaintiff's second suit was contested on the ground that provisions of 0.11, R.2, C.P.C. would apply and thus, plaint in the suit was liable to be rejected---Validity---Plaint was correctly rejected by Trial Court and Appellate Court taking correct view of the matter had rightly dismissed appeal---No case was made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction with findings of Courts below---Decision of Courts below…