NOOR KHAN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND omits
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition in a pre-emption matter decided by the Board of Revenue. During the hearing, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner failed to place all necessary and relevant documents on the record, highlighting the duty of the Advocate-on-Record to ensure all relevant certified copies are provided. The Court observed that the failure to produce essential trial court documents before the High Court and this Court contravenes procedural rules and spirit. Holding that such conduct disentitles the party to discretionary relief, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal on this ground alone, while also noting that the petition lacked merits based on the available material. The key principle laid down is that the failure of an Advocate-on-Record to place essential and relevant documents on the record constitutes a valid ground for refusing discretionary relief.
- Is it the duty of the Advocate-on-Record to place all necessary and relevant documents on the record of the petition?
- Does the failure to produce relevant documents before the High Court and the Supreme Court disentitle a petitioner to discretionary relief?
- Can leave to appeal be refused solely on the ground of failure to supply the necessary record by the Advocate-on-Record?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD APZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 6-11-1983 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a pre-emption matter ultimately decided by the Board of Revenue was dismissed.
2. During the hearing we felt difficulty in that all the necessary and relevant documents have not been placed on the record of the petition. It is the duty of the Advocate-on-Record under the rules of this Court, to place on record the relevant documents/copies (certified by him to be true copies provided they are not those copies which are to be officially certified as true copies). It will not be a legitimate excuse that the said material was not placed before the High Court. That would amount to the contravention of the spirit of the rule if not its letter.
3. ' The present case illustrates the contravention in a very vivid manner. The High Court having felt the same difficulty made the following observation in this behalf "The learned counsel has however not produced any document from the record of the trial Court to show that the said finding of fact recorded by the Additional Commissioner is not based on any oral or documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court.
4. ' He has also not produced any such document to show either that the point that the change was not recorded in the presence of right holders and the tenants of the village had ever been raised before Revenue Courts or that the same was not proved on record."
5. Taking serious note of this practice, and the conduct of petitioner projected through his A. O. R. It is held that he has disentitled himself to discretionary relief in this Court. We accordingly decline to grant leave to appeal in this case on this ground alone ; although otherwise too after hearing the learned counsel we felt that on the material placed before us, this petition merited dismissal.
Cited by 2 cases
- FARID KHAN And Another vs JABBAR KHAN Through Legal Heirs; And Other 1991 SCMR 309
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and anothers vs Mst. NIAMAT BIBI 1989 PLD Supreme Court 392