Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 354‑R of 1984, decided on 17th March, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 4‑12‑1984 of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in R.S.A. No.25 of 1982).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100‑‑Second appeal‑‑Judicial discretion of High. Court‑‑Regular second appeal filed by petitioner incompetent‑‑Prayer for its conversion into civil revision not acceded to‑‑Order assailed with case‑law cited in support‑‑Whether High Court should grant such a prayer or not in given circumstances of a case being matter of judicial discretion, Supreme Court declined to interfere‑‑Petition dismissed.

Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 17th March, 1985.

‑‑The admitted position is that a Regular Second Appeal was instituted by the petitioner on 24‑1‑1982 in the High Court in a suit whose value for purposes of jurisdiction was placed at Rs.200. It is also admitted that at this point of time second appeal whose jurisdictional value did not exceed Rs.2,000 had been abolished. Hence there is no dispute that the second appeal filed by the petitioner was incompetent.

The petitioner, therefore, made a prayer before the High Court to convert his second appeal into a civil revision on 2‑12‑1984. The learned Judge in the High Court hearing the matter was not inclined to accede to this prayer at that stage. The appeal being admittedly incompetent was dismissed accordingly. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

The contention of Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner, before us was that there was no impediment in the way of the learned Judge to convert the second appeal into a revision and that in similar circumstances such requests were accepted by the High Court and this action was approved by this Court. Several judgments were cited in support of this assertion.

The plea that the High Court may allow a prayer for converting a second appeal into a revision is correct. But whether it should grant' such a prayer or not in the given circumstances of a case is a matter:" of judicial discretion. In this case, the learned Judge was not persuaded, to exercise his discretion in favour of the petitioner. This is not such a matter which would warrant interference by this Court.

The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner could have, even at that stage, withdrawn his appeal and submitted a civil revision. But the fact remains that he did not adopt that course. He may even now, if so advised, do so at his risk.

This petition, with these observations, is dismissed.

M.I 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.