Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 755 of 1981, decided on 7th March, 1982.
(Against the order dated 26‑4‑1981 passed (by the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 600 of 1980).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑ O. XIII, r. 2‑‑Production of documents.‑‑Refusal‑‑Facts of case calling for examination of question whether case in circumstances not a "case decided" and whether High Court‑ powerless to see magnitude of wrong done to plaintiff ‑petitioner and violated relevant principle‑ Leave to appeal granted.
Malik Habibullah Khan v. Pakistan Cement Industries Limited and others 1969 S C M R 965 ref.
Zakiuddin Pal, Advocate Supreme Court and
Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Date of hearing : 7th March, 1982.
‑The petitioner‑plaintiff seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 26‑4‑1981 whereby a revision petition filed by him against the refusal of the trial Court denying to the petitioner the permission to produce the documents and witnesses at the trial on the ground that as held by this Court in Malik Habibullah Khan v. Pakistan Cement Industries Limited and others 1969 S C M R 965, it was not "a case decided" and as such a revision was not competent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner distinguishes the case mentioned above on the ground that in that case documents which had not been relied upon while filing the suit or when issues were framed, were not allowed to be produced. In the present case, the plaintiff petitioner specifically mentioned these documents and relied upon them when he filed the plaint and the issues have not so far been framed in the case though the suit itself was instituted in 1975. It is said that the trial Court was possessed of no jurisdiction to deny the plaintiff's right to produce such evidence as he had relied upon and mentioned at the time of the filing of the suit itself. It was not a case of producing any additional evidence. It was on the contrary a case of exercise of right of hearing, of producing such evidence as was lawfully and at the first opportunity relied upon.
The facts of the case do call for an examination of the question whether in the circumstances it was not "a case decided" and whether the High Court was powerless to see the magnitude of the wrong done to the plaintiff petitioner and the principle violated. Leave to appeal is granted. Rs. 2,500 as security. No interim order meanwhile except that the judgment finally disposing of the case may not be passed while this petition is pending. The appeal to be heard on its present record, with liberty to the parties to file additional documents.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer