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. 1128 of 1983, heard on 10th March, 1984.
(Against the judgment, dated 11‑7‑1983, of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1704 of 1983).
‑‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115 and O.XLI, r.27‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Granted to consider (i) whether permission to produce additional evidence does not amount to "case decided" and such an order not amenable to revision under S.115, C.P.C., and (ii) whether revisional jurisdiction in such circumstances should be controlled by discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction possessed by superior Courts
Rehman Dad and another v. Major Raja Sajawal Khan etc. 1976 SCMR 350;..Habibullah Khan ‑v. Pak. Cement Industries Ltd. 1969 SCMR 965 and Mst. Fazal Begum v. Bahadur Khan and another P L D 1983 Lah. 365 cited.
Zakiuddin Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 10th March, 1984.
‑‑ The petitioner is a‑vendee in a pre emption suit and seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 11th July, 1983 whereby his constitutional petition challenging the decision of the revisional Court, dated 26th March, 1983 was dismissed.
The petitioner in a pre‑emption suit instituted by the respondents 2 to 4 closed his evidence on 18‑11‑1978. All the same on 23‑10‑1981 he applied for producing certain documents by way of additional evidence which application was allowed on 9‑2‑1983 on costs reserving the right of the other party to rebut such evidence. By his order dated 26‑3‑1983 the District Judge allowed the revision petition and refused the permission to lead additional evidence.
The learned Judge in the High Court in dismissing the constitutional petition was guided by a decision of this Court in Rehman Dad and another v. Major Raja Sajawal Khan etc. 1976 S C M R 350.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is ample authority of this Court that a permission to produce additional evidence does not amount to 'case decided' and such an order is not amenable to revision under section 115 of the C.P.C. He has relied on Habibullah Khan v. Pak. Cement Industries Ltd. 1969 S C M R 965. He has also referred to the decision of the Lahore High Court itself in Mst; Fazal Begum v. Bahadur Khan and another P L D 1983 Lah. 365.
We consider that an authoritative pronouncement on the question is required and also whether the revisional jurisdiction in such circumstances should be controlled by discretionary constitutional jurisdiction possessed by the superior Courts. The decision of the District Judge allowing the revision petition is suspended ad interim so as to enable the trial Court to conclude the proceedings before him as expeditiously as possible as much delay has already taken place on account of these proceedings. Security in the sum of Rs.2,500.
S. Q. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer