Pakistan Case Law
1986 PLD Lahore 283

REHMAT ALI KOHAR vs Mist. SARDARAN BIBI AND 15 OTHERS

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 PLD Lahore 283
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Civil Revision No, 897 of 1986
Date1986-05-05
Judge(s)Abaid Ullah Khan
ResultRevision accepted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This civil revision petition impugned the validity of an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, remanding a civil suit touching the inheritance of land back to the trial court. In appeal against the dismissal of their suit by the trial court, the respondents had filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for permission to produce additional evidence. The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, remanding the entire suit alongside the application to the trial court for decision. The High Court accepted the revision petition, holding that an appellate court cannot delegate or abdicate its statutory authority to decide an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 to a trial court. The High Court set aside the impugned remand order and remanded the appeal back to the District Judge for fresh disposal of both the appeal and the additional evidence application in accordance with law.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can an appellate court remand an application for additional evidence filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to the trial court for decision?
  • Does a trial court have jurisdiction to entertain and decide an application for additional evidence filed under Order XLI Rule 27 during appellate proceedings?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
remand orderadditional evidenceOrder XLI Rule 27appellate court jurisdictioncivil revisioninheritance suit

' The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition pugning the validity of the remand order passed by the learned Addional District Judge, Sialkot, on the 24th March, 1986, may be shortly tated. The respondents' suit touching inheritance of the land left by one ussain Bakhsh against the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Civil badge, Pasrur, on the 28th May, 1985. In appeal the respondents moved plication under Order XLI, rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for ye to produce additional evidence. After getting the petitioner's reply o the application, Mr. Muhammad Bashir Malik, the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, who was seized with the hearing of appeal, set aside he judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, remanded the nit and sent the respondents' application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence alongwith the petitioner's reply thereto to the learned trial Court for disposal of the suit as well as the application.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents has frankly conceded that the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge is not sustainable in law. The application for permission to produce additional evidence was to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge himself.

He could not have abdicated his powers and authority to decide it in favour of the learned trial Court which possessed no jurisdiction to deal with such an application. The learned Additional District Judge failed to exercise jurisdiction in deciding the application and appeal. The petition I accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the learned District Judge, Sialkot, for disposing it and the application according to law. The parties have been directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Sialkot, on the 20th May, 1986. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

Cited by 9 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.