MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 3 Other
This matter arises from a civil suit under the Specific Relief Act where defendant No. 2 filed an application under Order VII, rules 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejection of the plaint or appointment of a next friend, alleging the plaintiff was of unsound mind. The trial court rejected the application, and the revisional court dismissed the subsequent revision, noting the applicant failed to apply under Order XXXII, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for taking the plaint off the record to inquire into the plaintiff's mental capacity. A subsequent writ petition before the Lahore High Court was also dismissed. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, attempting to introduce new material in the form of a subsequent statement made before a Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that subsequent material cannot be used to determine the correctness of past judicial orders and declined to interfere with the High Court's decision in writ jurisdiction, ultimately dismissing the petition.
- Can subsequent material arising after the impugned orders be referred to for deciding the correctness of orders already passed by lower courts?
- Whether the High Court's refusal to interfere in writ jurisdiction against orders dismissing an application regarding a plaintiff's unsoundness of mind warrants Supreme Court interference?
- Is an application under Order XXXII rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 necessary for taking a plaint off the record regarding the unsoundness of mind of a plaintiff?
- Order VII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXII Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-In a suit under the Specific Relief Act brought by Muhammad Hussain, etc., plaintiffs, an application was moved by Muhammad Younas, defendant No. 2 there, under Order VII, rules 10 and 11, C. P. C., on the ground that Muhammad Hussain was not of sound mind and as such his plaint be rejected or in the alternative a suitable person be appointed as his next friend. The application was rejected by the trial Court on 18-2-1978. Muhammad Younas went in revision but the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 27-6-1978, on the ground, inter alia that he had neither applied under Order XXXI1, rule 2, C. P. C. For taking the plaint off the record for holding an enquiry about the alleged unsoundness of mind of Muhammad Hussain.
Muhammad Younas then brought a writ petition which too, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 19-8-1978. He now seeks leave to appeal through this petition.
2. Mr. Hakam Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, wants to rely on a new material, for the production of which he has moved a miscellaneous application. This material is a statement made before the Rent Controller on 28-2-1979 by Muhammad Shafi son of the said Muhammad Hussain.
This statement being subsequent in time cannot be referred to for deciding the correctness of the order already passed by the Courts below. The Civil Court and the revisional Court had given their reasons for rejecting the A petitioners application and as such we are not inclined to interfere with the High Court's decision not to intervene in the matter in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.