Hafiz MUHAMMAD ABDUL HAMEED and another vs MAHBOOB ALI and 19
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioners' Civil Revision by the High Court. The petitioners' suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed after the trial court closed their evidence due to an alleged failure to produce it. On appeal, the District Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground of deficient court-fee. In revision, the High Court disagreed with the District Judge on the court-fee issue but proceeded to uphold the trial court's order closing the evidence, thereby dismissing the revision petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court should have remanded the case to the District Court for a decision on the merits once the appellate court's finding on court-fee was overturned, and whether the trial court's order closing the evidence was legally sustainable. The key principle is that when an appellate court's threshold dismissal is set aside in revision, the proper course of action regarding remand and the evaluation of the trial court's interlocutory orders must be carefully determined.
- Whether the High Court, after setting aside an appellate court's dismissal based on deficient court-fee, should remand the case to the appellate court for a decision on the merits?
- Whether a revision petition can be dismissed by upholding a trial court's interlocutory order closing evidence when the specific appellate order impugned in the revision was found to be unsustainable?
- What is the correct procedure for reviewing the legality and propriety of a trial court's order closing a party's evidence under revisionary jurisdiction?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioners' Civil Revision which had arisen out of petitioners' suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
2. ' Petitioners' evidence was closed by Court order on an assumption that they had failed to produce evidence despite adequate opportunity. Their suit was also dismissed. On their appeaFthe learned District Judge took the view that the petitioners had not affixed proper court-fee, request for making up the deficiency was disallowed and their appeal was accordingly dismissed. On their Civil Revision the learned Judge did not agree with the appellate Court on the question of court- fee. However, it on its own treated the order passed by the trial Court closing petitioners' evidence, as unexceptionable. The said order was restored on account of their conduct and accordingly their revision petition was dismissed notwithstanding the fact that the order impugned in revision was not found sustainable.
3. We, after having perused the reasoning of the High Court and the trial Court consider it a fit case for grant of leave, inter alia, to examine; whether, the High Court should not have remanded the case to the learned District Court for hearing of the petitioners' appeal on merits; and if not, whether the petitioners' revision could and should have been dismissed on the assumption that the order passed by the learned trial Court was un-exceptionable. In this behalf the correctness, propriety and/or legality of the orders of the trial Court might also require examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
4. ' Security Rs,5,000.
5. ' The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all additional documents which would be necessary for disposal of the appeal.