NAWAZISH ALI And Others vs BASHIR AHMAD And Other
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the District Judge's order allowing a revision application and permitting the filing of a fresh written statement. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's refusal to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with the interlocutory order of the District Judge regarding pleadings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction because the District Judge acted with ample jurisdiction in granting permission to submit a fresh written statement. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction is properly withheld where a subordinate court possesses and validly exercises its jurisdictional competence over procedural matters.
- Whether the High Court can refuse to exercise constitutional jurisdiction against an order allowing a fresh written statement?
- Does a District Judge have jurisdiction to permit the submission of a fresh written statement in revision?
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dismissing a Constitutional petition filed by petitioners. By that petition, petitioners sought to challenge the order of the District Judge, Bahawalpur dated 8-2-1983 allowing revision application filed by respondent No.1 herein and in result granted his request for filing a fresh written statement. The learned Judge in the High Court refused to exercise constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that on the facts disclosed learned District Judge had ample jurisdiction to permit the submission of fresh written statement.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the record before us. We find that the learned Judge in the High Court has very rightly refused to exercise the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the facts of the case. There is therefore no merit in this petition and it is dismissed.