ABDUL SATTAR vs Mst. JAMILA BIBI and 9 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld an appellate court's decision to remand a matter for further evidence. The core dispute arose from an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to set aside a judgment and decree. The trial court had initially dismissed the application due to the respondent's failure to produce evidence. However, the appellate court allowed the appeal and remanded the case, granting the respondent one opportunity to adduce evidence. The petitioner sought revision of this remand order, which the High Court dismissed, affirming the direction to allow the respondent an opportunity to present evidence while setting a timeline for the trial's completion. The Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court's order, noting that the delay in recording evidence was attributable to the non-availability of the previous suit's file rather than the respondent's negligence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower courts' discretion to ensure a fair trial by allowing necessary evidence.
- Can an appellate court remand a case to allow a party to adduce evidence when the trial court dismissed the application due to lack of evidence?
- Does a High Court have the authority to set a timeline for the completion of proceedings in a trial court during revision?
- Is a revision petition maintainable against an order remanding a case for the production of evidence when the delay was caused by administrative factors?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 22-2-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No,251 of 1997.
2. The relevant facts are that through an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. The judgment and decree dated 26-4-1992 passed by the learned trial Court in favour of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No, 1 . Issues were duly framed but the application was dismissed, vide order, dated 28-5-1995, on account of the failure of the respondent to adduce evidence. The appeal filed by the respondents was, however, allowed by the learned appellate Court on 9-10- 1995 and the case was remanded to the learned trial Court with a direction that it be decided by allowing one opportunity of adducing evidence to the respondents. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner took the matter in revision before the High Court but his revision petition was dismissed with the following observations:- ' "In order to cater the situation I direct the Court below to only afford an opportunity, which has already been given by the Court in appeal to the respondents to adduce evidence and in any case the trial of the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Be completed within three months. Any request for interim relief by the petitioner can be agitated before the Court below."
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record we find that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference. The material available on record shows that the witnesses of the petitioner were present on several occasions but their statements could not be recorded on account of non-availability of the file of the previous suit. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and .