Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 22‑R of 1984, decided on 18th April, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 6‑11‑1983 in Writ Petition No. 454 of 1983).

‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXII, r. 4‑Petition for leave to appeal‑Duty of Advocate‑on‑Record under Rules to place on record relevant documents/copies (certified by him to be true copies provided they are not those copies which are to be officially certified as true copies)‑Fact that any such material was not placed before High Court, would not be a legitimate excuse‑Failure to file such documents would a not to contravention of spirit of Rules if not its letter‑Supreme Court while taking serious note of such practice and conduct of petitioner projected through his Advocate‑on‑Record, held, that petitioner had disentitled himself to discretionary relief in Supreme Court‑Leave to appeal declined on said ground alone.

Maulvi Sirajul Hay, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 18th April, 1984.

Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 6‑11‑1983 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a pre‑emption matter ultimately decided by the Board of Revenue was dismissed.

During the hearing we felt difficulty in that all the necessary and relevant documents have not been placed on the record of the petition. It is the duty of the Advocate‑on‑Record under the rules of this Court, to place on record the relevant documents/copies (certified by him to be true copies provided they are not those copies which are to be officially certified as true copies). It will not be a legitimate excuse that the said material was not placed before the High Court. That would amount to the contravention of the spirit of the rule if not its letter.

The present case illustrates the contravention in a very vivid manner. The High Court having felt the same difficulty made the following observation in this behalf :

"The learned counsel has however not produced any document from the record of the trial Court to show that the said finding of fact recorded by the Additional Commissioner is not based on any oral or documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court. He has also not produced any such document to show either that the point that the change was not recorded in the presence of right holders and the tenants of the village had ever been raised before Revenue Courts or that the same was not proved on record."

Taking serious note of this practice, and the conduct of petitioner projected through his A. O. R. it is held that he has disentitled himself to discretionary relief in this Court. We accordingly decline to grant leave to appeal in this case on this ground alone; although otherwise too after hearing the learned counsel we felt that on the material placed before us, this petition merited dismissal.

M. Z. 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.