AMJAD H.MALIK vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The High Court had disposed of the petitioner's constitutional petition based on the relief sought by the petitioner and the consent provided by the respondent. The High Court's order directed the trial court to ensure the production of relevant bank records regarding remittances by a specified date to facilitate the timely disposal of the case, while also allowing parties to present rebuttal evidence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged this order, expressing apprehension regarding potential technical difficulties in producing the entire record. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's direction was limited to the production of 'relevant record' only. Finding the petitioner's apprehension unsubstantiated and noting that the High Court had already granted the relief sought by the petitioner through consent, the Supreme Court held that no valid grounds existed for leave to appeal. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.
- Can a petitioner challenge an order in the Supreme Court that was passed by the High Court based on the petitioner's own requested relief and the respondent's consent?
- Does a direction by the High Court for the production of 'relevant record' constitute a valid ground for appeal if the petitioner fears technical difficulties in producing the entire record?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought against an order passed by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction whereby the petitioner's Constitutional petition was disposed of in the light of the relief sought by the petitioner and the consent given from the respondent's side. The relevant part of the order reads as follows-- "In view of the above, I direct that the trial Court shall ask the concerned officers of the two banks to produce the relevant record with sources, if any, of remittances on such a date/dates so that this case is decided before the end of October, 1984. The parties shall appear before the Court on 8th July, 1984. The Court shall also allow the parties to produce any evidence in rebuttal. This petition with the above direction shall stand disposed of with no order as to costs."
2. When questioned as to what is the grievance left with regard to the direction sought from and issued by the High Court as contained in the above reproduced .Part of the order, the petitioner stated that he would face certain technical difficulties with regard to the production of the entire record. The apprehension is unsubstantiated as the High Court's directions relate to the production of the "relevant record". That being so, no case has been made out for leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.