MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT and 3 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a vendee in a pre-emption suit against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his constitutional petition challenging the revisional order of the District Judge refusing him permission to lead additional evidence. The core legal question concerns whether an order allowing or refusing additional evidence amounts to a 'case decided' so as to be amenable to revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether revisional jurisdiction in such circumstances should be controlled by discretionary constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that an authoritative pronouncement on the question is required, suspended the decision of the District Judge ad interim, and allowed the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously while granting leave.
- Does an order granting or refusing permission to produce additional evidence amount to a case decided under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is an interlocutory order allowing additional evidence amenable to revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- How should the revisional jurisdiction of a court in interlocutory matters be controlled by the discretionary constitutional jurisdiction possessed by superior courts?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioner is a vendee in a preemption suit and seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 11th July, 1983 whereby his constitutional petition challenging the decision of the revisional Court, dated 26th March, 1983 was dismissed.
2. ' The petitioner in a pre-emption suit instituted by the respondents 2 to 4 closed his evidence on 18- 11-1978. All the same on 23-10-1981 he applied for producing certain documents by way of additional evidence which application was allowed on 9-2-1983 on costs reserving the right of the other party to rebut such evidence. By his order dated 26-3-1983 the District Judge allowed the revision petition and refused the permission to lead additional evidence.
3. ' The learned Judge in the High Court in dismissing the constitutional petition was guided by a decision of this Court in Rehman Dad and another v. Major Raja Sajawal Khan etc. 1976 SCMR 350.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is ample authority of this Court that a permission to produce additional evidence does not amount to 'case decided' and such an order is not amenable to revision under section 115 of the C.P.C. He has relied on Habibullah Khan v. Pak.
5. Cement Industries Ltd. 1969 SCMR 965. He has also referred to the decision of the Lahore High Court itself in Mst. Fazal Begum v. Bahadur Khan and another PLD 1983 Lah.
6. 365.
7. ' We consider that an authoritative pronouncement on the question is required and also whether the revisional jurisdiction in such circumstances should be controlled by discretionary constitutional jurisdiction possessed by the superior Courts. The decision of the District Judge allowing the revision petition is suspended ad interim so as to enable the trial Court to conclude the proceedings before him as expeditiously as possible as much delay has already taken place on account of these proceedings. Security in the sum of Rs,2,500.