LEHRASAB KHAN vs Mst. AQIL UN NISA
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Regular Second Appeal on the grounds of incompetence. The petitioner had filed the appeal in a suit where the jurisdictional value was Rs. 200, a category for which second appeals had been abolished. The petitioner subsequently requested the High Court to convert the incompetent second appeal into a civil revision, a request the High Court declined to grant in the exercise of its judicial discretion. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was bound to allow such a conversion or if it remained a matter of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court possesses the power to allow the conversion of a second appeal into a civil revision, the decision to grant or refuse such a prayer rests entirely within the High Court's judicial discretion. Finding no grounds to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
- Does the High Court have the power to convert a Regular Second Appeal into a civil revision?
- Is the High Court bound to grant a request to convert an incompetent second appeal into a civil revision?
- Does the refusal of the High Court to exercise its discretion to convert an appeal into a revision warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The admitted position is that a Regular Second Appeal was instituted by the petitioner on 24-1-1982 in the High Court in a suit whose value for purposes of jurisdiction was placed at Rs.200. It is also admitted that at this point of the second appeal whose jurisdictional value did not exceed Rs.2,000 had been abolished. Hence there is no dispute that the second appeal filed by the petitioner was incompetent.
2. The petitioner, therefore, made a prayer before the High Court to convert his second appeal into a civil revision on 2-12-1984. The learned Judge in the High Court hearing the matter was not inclined to accede to this prayer at that stage. The appeal being admittedly incompetent was dismissed accordingly. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The contention of Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner, before us was that there was no impediment in the way of the learned Judge to convert the second appeal into a revision and that in similar circumstances such requests were accepted by the High Court and this action was approved by this Court. Several judgments were cited in support of this assertion.
4. The plea that the High Court may allow a prayer for converting a second appeal into a revision is correct. But whether it should grant' such a prayer or not in the given circumstances of a case is a matter:" of judicial discretion. In this case, the learned Judge was not persuaded, to exercise his discretion in favour of the petitioner. This is not such a matter which would warrant interference by this Court.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner could have, even at that stage, withdrawn his appeal and submitted a civil revision. But the fact remains that he did not adopt that course. He may even now, if so advised, do so at his risk.