Find a Lawyer

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑

‑‑Ss. 115(1), proviso, 151 & O. XLI, R. 1‑‑Revision‑‑Form of appeal‑‑Plea of misreading or non‑reading of evidence‑‑No certified copy of either the evidence led in the suit or of the various documents relied upon by Courts below placed on record but private reproductions were filed under the signatures of counsel without prayer for dispensation of their production or any order passed on the subject‑ Such private reproductions, held, could not form any legal status and were not a substitute for certified copies and could not be referred to in regular civil matters filed in the High Court‑‑Filing of private reproductions of judicial records on files of civil appeals and revisions in the High Court disapproved‑‑Dispensation of certified copies could be sought upon making out a proper case‑‑Effect of obtaining an order of dispensation‑‑Prayer for dispensation of certified copies and furnishing of their private reproductions were two different matters and neither could one give rise to a justification for the other nor could a reason be found for treating them as interdependent.

No certified copy of either the evidence led in the suit of the various documents relied upon by those Courts, was placed on record. Their private reproductions were, however, been filed under the signatures of the counsel. Since they do not have any legal status and cannot form a substitute for the certified copies, therefore, they cannot be referred to in regular civil matters filed in High Court. There, of course, may be cases in which it may not be necessary for an applicant for revision to file a copy of such a document or evidence duly considered by the appellate Court and he may legitimately claim interference in revision on the basis of the facts determined in the impugned judgment. In such cases he may not be required to file the certified copies of such oral or documentary evidence as may not be necessary for him to be referred to at all at the time of hearing and in those cases the party can have resort to the inherent power of High Court under section 151 of the C.P.C. to seek dispensation of their production upon making out a proper case for the purpose. However, the effect of obtaining an order of dispensation may well be to debar him from referring to such documents at any subsequent stages for grant of relief in revision but in cases where claim for interference is made on the ground of misreading or non‑reading of a certain evidence existing on the record, there the copies required to be filed under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 115 of the C.P.C. have to be furnished. Actually, the prayer for dispensation of certified copies and furnishing of their private re-productions are two wholly different matters and neither can one give rise to a justification for the other nor can a reason be found for treating them as interdependent. Whether or not an applicant for revision may be able to make out a proper case for dispensation of production of certified copies and irrespective of the fact as to whether or not he may succeed in securing an order for dispensation, there cannot be any occasion to accept private reproductions of judicial records in regular civil matters because, even if they are authenticated by a counsel of high eminence, they cannot be regarded to have acquired legal validity. No one can urge it with any amount of reasonableness that since private reproductions of a judicial record have been furnished, therefore their certified copies may be dispensed with from being produced and it cannot be claimed even the other way 'round that since production of certified copies has been dispensed with, therefore, their private reproductions may be accepted as a substitute for meeting the requirements of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 115 of the C.P.C. and, hence, no occasion arises at all for placing private‑reproductions of judicial records on the files of regular civil appeals. and revisions maintained in the High Court. In the absence of an appropriate order of dispensation of certified copies required to be furnished, a revision petition cannot be considered to have been properly constituted without the required certified copies. Practice of filing private reproductions of judicial records in place of certified copies appears to have been borrowed from writ petitions for which there are not laid down any statutory requirements of procedure and since appeals and revisions are respectively required to be framed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1 of Order XLI and the proviso to subsection (1) of section 115 of the C.P.C., therefore, there cannot be any occasion for filing private reproductions of judicial records on the files of Civil Appeals and revisions filed in High Court. Such a misgiving is desired to be dispelled. Thus, without the certified copies of the evidence and documents filed, in the absence of a prayer for dispensation of their production and any order passed for the purpose, not only that Civil Revision cannot be taken to have been properly constituted but it has also to be held that there is no material available on the record to sustain the solitary contention desired to be raised with regard to the alleged misreading and non‑reading of the record by the Courts below. Since it is laid down in the proviso to subsection (1) of section 115 of the C.P.C. itself that "the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded, dispose of such application without calling for the record of the subordinate Court" and there is no reason for .the .record below being sent for, therefore, there does not emerge any tenable case.

Habibur Rehman and another v. Faqir Muhammad P L D 1983 Pesh. 197 and Sardar Ali Khan v. Muhammad Rauf Khan and 4 others P L D 1984 Pesh. 88 ref.

Rana Abdul Aziz Bhatti, Advocate for Petitioner.

Walayat Hussain (husband), Mst. Akhtar Begum and Mst. Ghulam Faiza (daughters) of Mst. Ghulam Sughra, being the co‑sharers of certain land in village Chial, Tehsil Gujjar Khan, district Rawalpindi; filed a suit for grant of a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioners and other co‑sharers of the land to restrain them from either raising any construction over the joint land or changing its character. The suit was contested by the first three defendants, the petitioners herein, on the basis of mutation No.285 sanctioned on 26‑9‑1974 with regard to an oral sale made in their favour by Abdul Rashid, a co‑sharer in possession. Necessary issues were framed and parties led their evidence upon the consideration whereof trial Court held that the land is jointly owned by the parties which has not been partitioned and hence, until a regular partition takes place, none of them can put any part of the joint‑holding to his exclusive use in such a way as to exclude the others from the enjoyment thereof, as had been held in Habibur Rehman and another v. Faqir Muhammad P L D 1983 Peshawar 197 and Sardar Ali Khan v. Muhammad Rauf Khan and 4 others P L D 1984 Peshawar 88. The suit of the plaintiffs was consequently decreed by the trial Court on 12‑5‑1985.

2. An appeal there against filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge on 15‑12‑1985 by affirming the findings of the trial Court upon a reconsideration of the evidence and upholding the decree of the trial Court. They have now come up to this Court on revision.

3. Proposition of law relied upon by the two Courts below is uncontrovertible and this case really gets concluded with their concurrent findings on questions of fact which are sought to be assailed by the sketchy grounds of revision on the plea that the record has been misread by the two Courts below but there is no certified copy of either the evidence led in the suit or of the various documents relied upon by those Courts, placed on this record. Their private reproductions have, however, been filed under the signatures of the counsel. Since they do not have any legal status and cannot form a substitute for the certified copies, therefore, they cannot be referred to in regular civil matters filed in this Court.

There, of course, may be cases in which it may not be necessary for an applicant for revision to file a copy of such a document or evidence duly considered by the appellate Court and he may legimately claim interference in revision on the basis of the facts determined in the impugned judgment. In such cases he may not be required to file the certified copies of such oral or documentary evidence as may not A be necessary for him to be referred to at all at the time of hearing and, in those cases the party can have resort to the inherent power of this Court under section 151 of the C.P.C. to seek dispensation of their production upon making out a proper case for the purpose. However, the effect of obtaining an order of dispensation may well be to debar him from referring to such documents at any subsequent stages for grant of relief in revision but in cases where claim for interference is made on the ground of misreading or non‑reading of a certain evidence existing on the record, there the copies required to be filed under the proviso to subsection, (1) of section 115 of the. C.P.C. have to be furnished. Actually, the prayer for dispensation of certified copies and furnishing of their private reproductions are two wholly different matters and neither can one give rise to a justification for the other nor can a reason be found for treating them as interdependent. Whether or not an applicant for revision may be able to make out a proper case for dispensation of production of certified copies and irrespective of the fact as to whether or not he may succeed in securing an order for dispensation, there cannot be any occasion to accept private reproductions of judicial records in regular civil matters because, even if they are authenticated by a counsel of high eminence, they cannot be regarded to have acquired legal validity. No one can urge it with any amount of reasonableness that since private reproductions of a judicial record have been

furnished, therefore, their certified copies may be dispensed with from being produced and it cannot be claimed even the other way round that since production of certified copies has been dispensed with, therefore, their private reproductions may be accepted as a substitute for meeting the requirements of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 115 of the C.P.C. and, hence, no occasion arises at all for placing private‑reproductions of judicial records on the files of regular civil appeals and revisions maintained in this Court of Records.

In the absence of an appropriate order of dispensation of certified copies required to be furnished, a revision petition cannot be considered to have been properly constituted without the required certified copies. Such a practice of filing private reproductions of judicial records in place of certified copies appears to have been borrowed from writ‑petitions for which there are not laid down any statutory requirements of procedure and since appeals and revisions are respectively required to be framed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1 of Order XLI and the proviso to subsection (1) of section 115 of the C . P.C. , therefore, there cannot be any occasion for filing private reproductions of judicial records on the files of Civil Appeals and revisions filed in High Court. It is high time that such a misgiving may be dispelled.

4. Thus, without the certified copies of the evidence and documents filed, in the absence of a prayer for dispensation of their production and any order passed for the purpose, not only that this Civil Revision cannot be taken to have been properly constituted but it has also to be held that there is no material available on the record to sustain the solitary contention desired to be raised with regard to the alleged misreading and non‑reading of the record by the Courts below. Since it is laid down in the proviso to subsection (1) of section 115 of the C.P.C. itself that "the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded, dispose of such application without calling for the record of the subordinate Court" and there is no reason for the record below being sent for, therefore, there does not emerge any tenable case.

5. The Civil Revision remains unsubstantiated and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

M . B . A . / M‑370/ L Revision 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.