Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D-106 of 1987, decided on 4th February, 1987.

---Ss.15,20 & 21--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Application for summoning record--Dismissal of--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Petitioner/tenant's application for summoning certain record was dismissed by Rent Controller by giving cogent reasons for such disposal--High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction refused to go into question of merits or demerits of such rejection as matter finally would come up in appeal in case ejectment was allowed against petitioner/tenant--In that case matter of rejection of application could also be agitated by tenant before Appellate Authority alongwith ejectment order of Rent Controller against him.

--Ss.15,20 & 21(1)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199- Application for summoning record--Rejection of--Proper remedy against--To allow or reject application of tenant for summoning record or witness being matter of discretion of Rent Controller, where such application had been rejected after giving cogent reasons, Rent Controller, held, had not acted arbitrarily or without jurisdiction in the matter--Consequently, constitutional petition against order of Rent Controller would not be competent--Tenant, however, could agitate mat before Appellate Authority alongwith final order of Rent Controller.

1985 C L C 283 ref.

---Art.199--Constitutional petition against interim order Competency of--To entertain constitutional petition against interim orders made by different judicial officers, held, would not be in the interest of justice as by so doing scopes litigation would unnecessarily be enlarged and disposal of cases would be delayed.

Suleman Habibullah for Petitioner.

--This petition called in question the order of the Rent Controller to summon certain records on behalf of the petitioner who is opponent in the rent proceedings where the question of his ejectment by the respondent is under consideration. The Rent Controller has given reasons for rejecting the said application. We do not want to go into the question of the merits or demerits of the rejection because the matter is finally to come up in appeal in case the ejectment is allowed against the petitioner and. in that appeal the petitioner if aggrieved against the final order can also agitate that his application for summoning evidence was dismissed on insufficient grounds. Therefore, it is not appropriate for us to comment on the merits of the order impugned.

It is enough to observe that the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to allow or not to allow the application for summoning witnesses and since he has given some reasons in the order that he has passed, therefore, he has not acted arbitrarily or without jurisdiction in the matter and consequently this petition is not competent. We may observe here that it would not be in the interest of justice to entertain writ petitions against the interim orders which are made by the different judicial officers as the proper stage for ventilating the grievance is at the final order is passed in respect of the matter. Doing otherwise without mean unnecessarily enlarging scope of litigation and delaying disposal of case which would not be in the interest of justice. Consequently this petition is not found to be competent. Mr. Suleman Habibuilah has referred to a case reported in 1985 C L C 283 where the petition was directed against the summoning of witnesses on behalf of one party by R. C. and the same was dismissed by the High Court. The reliance of the counsel upon this authority was not correct because the petition had ultimately been dismissed. However, he tried to place reliance upon observations of the D.B. that a party has the right to produce his evidence and the Rent Controller would be bound to receive the same. But it was also held in the same case that Rent Controller was to be satisfied that there are good and substantial reasons for summoning the witnesses. Therefore, it is essentially a matter of discretion and in case the Rent Controller decides to exercise his dissection in favour of summoning the witnesses he may do so, and in appropriate cases he may decline the request for some reason. It is different, however, that in appeal directed against the final order, the aggrieved party may also ventilate the point whether the witnesses had been wrongly summoned or wrongly refused to be summoned. It would then be for the appellate Court, to consider whether the discretion was rightly or wrongly exercised. But it is not the function of the High Court in its supervisory constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with exercise of jurisdiction at the interim stage. With these observations this petition is dismissed in limine.

H. B. T./M-68/K. 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.