GH1ASUDDIN vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against an interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge on 15-2-1983, whereby the petitioner was directed to produce certain documents necessary for examining a plea raised in support of a revision application, and the complainant was ordered to be joined as a co-respondent. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with an interlocutory order directing document production and joinder of parties in a revision proceeding. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court judge passed the order to satisfy himself regarding the petitioner's own plea, the petitioner could not validly challenge it, and further that interference by the Supreme Court was unwarranted given the interlocutory nature of the order. The petition was consequently dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an interlocutory order of the High Court directing the production of documents in a revision application?
- Can a party challenge an interlocutory order passed by the High Court to examine a plea raised by that same party?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge, dated 15-2-1983 directing the petitioner to produce certain documents which were necessary for examination in order to consider a plea raised by him in support of the revision application. By the same order learned Judge further directed that the complainant in the case be joined as a co-respondent in the revision application.
2. Since the learned Judge passed this order as he wished to be satisfied with a plea raised by the petitioner, it is hardly open to him to challenge the order. In any case, the order is of interlocutory nature, and interference by this Court is not called for.
3. Leave is refused and the petition is dismissed.