Pakistan Case Law
1994 SCMR 1991

Mian MUHAMMAD LUQMAN and 5 others vs FARIDA KHANAM and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1994 SCMR 1991
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Appeal No, 65 of 1991 Civil Petition No, 166-L of 1991 Civil Revision No, 151
Date1991-04-22
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and‑Muhammad Rafiq Tarar
Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah
ResultAppeal accepted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court accepting a civil revision against an interlocutory order passed by the trial court in a pending suit for specific performance of contract. The core legal question was whether an interlocutory order allowing the summoning of a handwriting expert or retaining disputed writings on file constitutes "a case decided" so as to attract the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the interlocutory order in question did not constitute "a case decided" and, therefore, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the civil revision. The appeal is consequently allowed, the High Court's order is set aside, and the trial court's order is restored. The key principle laid down is that an interlocutory procedural order of this nature does not amount to a "case decided" for the purposes of invoking civil revisional jurisdiction.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an interlocutory order summoning a handwriting expert constitutes a case decided under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the High Court have revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 over an order that does not constitute a case decided?
  • Can an order retaining disputed writings and signatures on file for comparison be termed as a case decided?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
civil revisioncase decidedinterlocutory orderrevisional jurisdictionspecific performance

ORDER

' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---Leave to appeal having been sought against the acceptance by the High Court of respondents' Civil Revision which had arisen out of an interlocutory order passed in a pending suit, at a preliminary hearing; after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents on the legal point involved, this petition was converted into appeal. Now it has been heard as an appeal.

2. The petitioners/plaintiffs' side during the pendency of their suit for specific performance of contract applied for the summoning of a handwriting expert. This application, it has been assumed, was allowed by the order impugned before the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The nature of this order is such that prima facie it did not constitute "a case decided". It was doubtful whether the application was at all allowed because the learned trial Judge had also observed that in the interest of justice the disputed writing and signatures be retained on the file with a view to comparison" either with a naked eye if the Court so required or to send the same for expert's examination." Otherwise too it is doubtful whether in case an expert would have been summoned as prayed from the petitioner's side the order of summoning of expert would have constituted "a case decided".

3. It is not denied by the respondents' learned counsel that unless it is "a case decided " the High Court has no jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. To deal with the matter on civil Revisional side. On the specific point; whether, the order passed in this case by the trial Court which was impugned before the High Court did constitute a "case decided" the learned counsel, although having remained for considerable time hesitant to admit that it did not constitute "a case decided", ultimately failed to satisfy the Court that it did constitute "a case decided".

4. Obviously, the order was not such so as to empower the High Court to assume civil Revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.

5. That being so, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the trial Court is restored.

' There shall be no order as to costs.

Cited by 6 cases

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