Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No.184 of 1986 out of Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.129 of 1984 and Civil Appeal No.185 of 1986 out of Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.130 of 1984, decided on 8th April, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgments of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 3‑12‑1983 in Civil Revisions, Nos. 571 and 572 of 1982 respectively).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.27‑ Additional evidence‑‑Trial Court disallowing additional evidence sought to be produced by petitioner in support of his case and appellate Court also dismissing his application for same‑‑Courts below failing to exercise jurisdiction conferred on them and acting with material irregularity by declining petitioner's prayer for additional evidence‑ Petition for leave to appeal converted into appeal and appeal allowed‑ Case remanded to Trial Court for fresh decision after admitting additional evidence put by petitioner and also allowing opportunity to respondent to rebut.

Mian Saeedur Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both Cases).

Mian Pervez Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in Civil Appeal No.184 of 1986) .

M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in Civil Appeal No.185 of 1986).

‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions from judgments, dated 3rd December, 1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby two Civil Revisions arising out of a matter relating to the service of the respondents with the petitioner Bank, were dismissed.

The respondents were employees of the petitioner Bank. They were proceeded against for forgery, fraud and misappropriation of money and as a result of these accusations were dismissed from service. Civil Suits were filed by them for declaration to the effect that the orders of dismissal were mala fide, illegal and void. The suits were decreed, the appeals and revisions by the Bank failed, therefore, leave to appeal has been sought.

The suits have been decreed against the petitioner on the ground that neither charge was framed nor any inquiry was held against the respondents and they had been condemned unheard. It may be mentioned here that the plea of the petitioner was that all lawful proceedings were held; show‑cause notice was issued to which the respondents made replies, charge‑sheets were framed and dismissal orders were passed as a result of regular inquiry. However, the original show cause notice, reply, charge‑sheet and the inquiry report and proceedings were not placed before the learned trial Judge. This essentially became the reason for the failure of the petitioner‑Bank throughout.

This would not complete the factual picture. Before the trial Court on realisation that the inquiry file and some witnesses were essential, additional evidence was to be produced, an application was made for additional evidence which was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Similar application was made under Order XLI, rule 27, before the learned appellate Court, but that also was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the dismissal of the applications for additional evidence by the first two Courts was without any legal justification. The inquiry file was not such document which could have been manufactured. It formed official record of the petitioner which is a Government institution. There was no danger of the record or the evidence which was sought to be produced, to be procured falsely. In additional to these submissions learned counsel has brought to our notice two very vital points. Firstly, that the existence of the proceedings regarding respondents' dismissal in the form of a file was not even denied from the respondent side. Instead they had in their list of reliance themselves mentioned the said file to be summoned and produced in Court at appropriate stage, Secondly, not only this, the relevant paragraph of the plaint wherein the existence of proceedings are purported to have been denied in fact, does not show a clear denial. What has been challenged in the plaint is that the proceedings were not in accordance with law. Such a plea is different from the plea that the proceedings were never conducted.

The abovementioned two circumstances go along way to support the petitioner's case that there was an inquiry file which if allowed to be brought before the Court and relevant documents were allowed to be proved by persons concerned this controversy would not have arisen and the suits might not have been decreed.

We after hearing both the learned counsel are of the view that the first two learned Courts failed to exercise jurisdiction conferred on them and also acted with material irregularity when declining the petitioner's prayer for additional evidence. These petitions are, therefore, allowed. They are converted into appeals which are for the afore-discussed reasons hereby allowed. The cases are remanded to the learned trial Court for fresh decision after admitting additional evidence at the instance of the Bank, and thereafter, affording opportunity of rebuttal to the respondents. The judgment is confined to points raised and will not prevent the parties from taking other pleas, legal or otherwise. No costs.

M.Y.H. Appeals allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.