GHULAM ABBAS vs GHULAM HAIDER Ss — 2026 CLC 869 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

GHULAM ABBAS VS GHULAM HAIDER 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 of dismissal of application for setting-aside ex-parte proceedings passed by the trial court, only remedy of revision was 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 S.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 S.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.

GHULAM ABBAS vs GHULAM HAIDER Ss — 2026 CLC 869 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC