Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 5 of 1953, decided on 10th May, 1954 against the order of Sub-Judge, Muzaffarabad dated 31st January, 1953.

S. 115 (as adapted in Azad Kashmir),-Decree passed under Agriculturist Relief Act not open to revision on a pure question of fact.

Notwithstanding that there is an additional clause (d) in section 115 of Civil P. C. of Kashmir State, which permits revision on a question of fact, a revision petition under section 115 of Civil P. C. as in force in Azad Kashmir in respect of a decree under Agriculturist Relief Act on a pure question of fact is not competent.

Sheikh Abdul Hamid, for Petitioner.

Muhammad Shafi, for Respondent.

-This is an application in revision from the decree passed against the petitioner who claimed to be an agriculturist. The Sub-Judge exercised the powers granted to him under the Agriculturist Relief Act. It has been heard by all the three Judges of this Court, sitting together in the following circumstances.

The amount decreed was Rs. 500 and costs. Its payment was ordered to be made by half yearly instalment of Rs. 50. Under section 5 of the Agriculturist Relief Act in force in Dogra Regime and adopted by the Azad Kashmir Government, it is provided that no appeal shall lie from any decree passed in a suit to which this Act applies when the amount decreed exclusive of further interest allowed by the decree on such amount does not exceed Rs. 500 and the decree is passed by a Subordinate Judge. The decree being thus not appealable, a revision petition was lodged. When it came up for hearing before Niaz Ahmad J, a preliminary objection was raised that under section 115 Civil P. C. in force in Azad Kashmir Terri tory, the findings of fact arrived at in the proper exercise of jurisdiction by the Sub-Judge which were alone challenged to be erroneous did not afford any ground for revision. As the practice in Kashmir High Court was otherwise, it was consi dered proper to refer the matter to the Full Bench for decision.

We have heard the parties, Counsel, at great length and seen the array of authorities of judgments of Indian High Courts and Privy Council cited by the respondent's Counsel in support of contention for example, 11 Cal. 5, 11 Mad. 410, 8 All. 519, 58 I C 182. We need not, however, discuss these authorities at any length because we agree with the general consensus of opinion expres sed by the judges of the various High Courts that under section 115 Civil P. C. in force in Azad Kashmir and in Pakistan the findings of fact of the trial Court are binding. The application for revision in the High Court under the Agriculturist Relief Act cannot be treated differently from an application in revision in any suit other than the one tried under the provisions of the said Act because section 18 of the said Act provides that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply in all suits and proceedings before the Court under this Act. The difficulty, which however, lies in this is that at the time the Azad Kashmir Government adopted the Agriculturist Relief Act in force in Dogra Regime, it escaped notice that section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in force in Kashmir State differed in material respects from the similar section of the Code of Civil Procedure in force in British Territory and later on in Pakistan. in tire Civil P. C. in force in Kashmir State, there appeared 'resides clauses (a) (b) & (c), a clause (d) to over-ride the difficulty created by the Judgments of the Indian High Courts and Privy Council referred to above. Seeing that the provisions of the British Indian Code as inter pretted by the High Courts & Privy Council were unsuited to the somewhat simple if not backward conditions of the State, His Highness the Maharaja was pleased on the advice of the then Judicial Minister to add the provisions contained in clause (d) of section 115 which permitted the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact where failure of justice had been caused. By the addition of this clause a certain amount of latitude was granted to the High Court as a matter of caution. Thinking that the conditions in the Azad, Kashmir Territory so far as the Judicial Administration is concerned are still somewhat backward, the Government should have amended section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in force in Azad Kashmir Territory by making suitable provision so that failure of justice could be avoided by interference with the findings of fact arrived at by the lower Court by the High Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction but this was not done. So long as section 115 of the present Code of Civil Procedure is not amended as remarked above, we hold that this revision petition is not competent as it merely challenges the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court in the exercise of its proper jurisdiction. We feel however that it is necessary to add a clause to section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to enable the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court, where there are reasons justify ing interference on revision for doing substantial justice or for avoiding failure of Justice, we accordingly direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary for Law for taking the necessary action.

In order to find out whether findings of fact arrived at by the Sub-Judge are in any, way faulty, we heard the petitioner's Counsel at full length, as regards the evidence led in the case. We are of opinion that all the findings of fact arrived at by the Sub-Judge are based on full and reasoned discussion and appre ciation of the evidence produced and examined before him and consequently it cannot be said that the Sub-Judge's decision is erroneous on any question of fact involved in the case. The main contention of the petitioner's Counsel on merits is that the witness did not give the details of the goods supplied to the petitioner and it is also not entered in the entry made by the petitioner regarding the price of the goods. The petitioner admits that he did get goods and states that these were worth Rs. 250 and the entry for Rs. 500 was made so as to bring pressure oil him for speedy payment. We are not prepared to believe this assertion of the petitioner in the absence of any strong evidence to that effect. As regards the supply of grain in payment of the amount due from the petitioner reliance is placed upon the entries appearing in a receipt Exhibit D. A. alleged to have been made by the respondent from time to time when the grain was supplied but the respondent denies that this receipt was executed by him. The witnesses examined in support of the entries in the receipt are discrepant and not worthy of credit. The revision application is thus devoid of force even on merits. It is accordingly dismissed. It was lodged under misapprehension that the Law was the same as in force in Kashmir State, we therefore order that the costs shall be borne by the parties.

Pleader's fee shall be Rs. 10.

A. H. M Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.