MUHAMMAD JAVED SHAFI Versus HANIFA BEGUM
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the Company Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby notice was issued to an advocate to bring certain blank transfer deeds that were allegedly handed over to him according to the petitioner's own statement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard the matter and dismissed the petition on the short ground of non-maintainability. The Court held that the impugned order was not adverse to the interest of the petitioner in any manner, noting that if the petitioner had any objection to the production of the documents, such objections could be raised before the High Court to be decided on merits. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that an interlocutory order which does not prejudice a party or adversely affect their legal rights is not maintainable for challenge by way of a petition for leave to appeal.
- Is an interlocutory order that is not adverse to the interest of a petitioner maintainable for leave to appeal?
- Can a party object to the production of documents before the trial court rather than challenging an interlocutory notice?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑‑‑ This petition for leave to appeal is directed against an interlocutory order dated 18‑8‑1994 passed by the learned Company Judge, Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.O. No. 83/1994, which reads as under:
"Notice to Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate, for 25‑8‑1994. He is also directed to bring with him the blank transfer deeds which according to Mr. Javed Shafi as per his statement dated 8‑8‑1994 were handed over to him."
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we propose to dismiss this petition on the short ground on non‑maintainability, so, it would be unnecessary and sheer waste of time to mention the facts of the case or discuss the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The impugned order of the High Court, reproduced above, is not adverse to the interest of the petitioner, in any manner: Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate, has been simply directed to bring with him the blank transfer deeds which, according to the statement of the petitioner himself, were handed over to him. If the petitioner has any objection to the production of the documents in Court, he can raise objection there, which, of course, would be attended to and decided on merits by the said Court.
4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.
M.B.A./M‑2140/S Petition dismissed