Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Revision No. 897 of 1986, decided on 6th May, 1986.
---S. 115 & O. XLI, Rr. 23 & 27‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Remand order by Appellate Court‑Competency of‑Application for permission to produce additional evidence under O. XLI, R. 27, C. P. C., held, was to be decided by Appellate Court ‑Abdication of such power and authority in favour of Trial Court which possessed no jurisdiction to deal with such application, would not be sustain able at law‑Failure of Appellate Court to exercise jurisdiction in deciding application for production of additional evidence would render exercise of revisional jurisdiction by High Court necessary in setting aside such order of remand with direction to Appellate Court to decide same in accordance with law.
Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
Ch. Asadullah Khan Bajwa for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 6th May, 1986.
The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition impugning the validity of the remand order passed by the learned Addi tional District Judge, Sialkot, on the 24th March, 1986, may be shortly stated. The respondents' suit touching inheritance of the land left by one Hussain Bakhsh against the petitioner was dismissed 'by the learned Civil Judge, Pasrur, on the 28th May, 1985. In appeal the respondents moved application under Order XLI,, rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to produce additional evidence. After getting the petitioner's reply to the application, Mr. Muhammad Bashir Malik, the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, who was seized with the hearing of appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, remanded the suit and sent the respondents' application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence alongwith the petitioner's reply thereto to the learned trial Court for disposal of the suit as well as the application.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents has frankly conceded that the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge is not sustain able in law. The application for permission to produce additional evidence . was to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge himself. He could not have abdicated his powers and authority to decide it in favour of the learned trial Court which possessed no jurisdiction to deal with such an application. The learned Additional District Judge failed to exercise jurisdiction in deciding the application and appeal. The petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the learned District Judge, Sialkot, for disposing it and the application according to law. The parties have been directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Sialkot, on the 20th May. 1986. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
A. A. Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer