1989 CLC 427

NOORUDDIN Versus MUHAMMAD SULLEMAN

Citation1989 CLC 427

CourtSindh High Court

Date1988-05-24

Judge(s)Ajmal Nian and Abdul Rasool Agha

ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

1. This petition is directed against an order dated 14‑2‑1988 passed by the learned Ist Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R . A . No.10 of 1983 declining the present petitioner's application under Order XIII, Rule 2 C.P.C. for the production of certain alleged rent receipts in respect of certain shops.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the respondent filed aforesaid rent case for ejectment inter alia on the ground of personal requirement. The evidence was concluded in the above case in March, 1986 and thereafter the case was listed, according to the learned counsel for the respondent No.l, for about 60 times for arguments. The petitioner filed the aforesaid application, as per averment of the learned counsel for the respondent No.l, that was the 4th application, whereas according to the learned counsel for the petitioner there is nothing mentioned in the order. Be that as it may, the learned Rent Controller declined the above application, hence the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. In support of the above petition Mr. Muhammad lshaque Shams, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that since the impugned order is a final order as far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no remedy available to the petitioner and, therefore, the writ is competent.

4. It will suffice to observe that it is always discretionary with a trial Court either to allow or not to allow the production of a document after the closing of side and after the expiry of nearly 2 years from the date of the closing of the side. The impugned order, therefore, B cannot be said to be an order without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or in violation of any provision of law. The remedy, if any, to the petitioner is to wait till the passing of the final order and in case the same goes against him, to take a ground in the appeal.

5. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed in limine.

6. M . Y . H . /N‑136/ K

7. Petition dismissed.