NAZAKAT ALI and 3 others vs NAEEM-UD-DIN and another
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the respondent, claiming a superior right of pre-emption due to property adjacency. During the trial, the respondent applied for a court direction requiring the petitioners to produce original sale documents and a notice of Talb-e-Ishhad. The trial court granted this application, permitting the respondent to lead secondary evidence should the petitioners fail to comply. The petitioners challenged this order in the High Court via a revision petition, which was dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the High Court's order violated principles of natural justice and provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's order directing the production of documents was legally sound and that the High Court correctly dismissed the revision. Finding no jurisdictional error or question of general public importance, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal, affirming that procedural orders regarding document production are within the trial court's discretion.
- Is a trial court empowered to direct a defendant to produce original documents during the pendency of a pre-emption suit?
- Does an order directing the production of documents, with a provision for secondary evidence upon failure to comply, constitute a jurisdictional error?
- What criteria must be met for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
- Article 185(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 6-2-2002 passed in Civil Revision No,7 of 2002/BWP.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Naeem-ud-Din plaintiff/ respondent filed a suit for possession through pre-emption with regard to shop measuring one Marla situated in Dhaban Bazar, Bahawalnagar, which was transferred in favour of the petitioners/defendants vide sale-deed in which Naeem-ud-Din plaintiff/respondent claimed his superior right of pre-emption qua the defendants on the ground that property is adjacent to his property. The defendants filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint. During the pendency of the suit Naeem-udDin submitted an application in the Court with the request for issuance of direction to the petitioners for production of original documents to sell as well as receipt executed on 7-2-2000 as well as original notice dated 21-12-2000, which was sent through registered post for establishing Talb-e- Ishhad. This application was contested and the petitioners filed objections therein.
3. The Civil Judge, after hearing the parties through his order dated 11-12-2001 allowed the application and directed the petitioners to produce the above-mentioned documents in the Court on the next date of hearing, in case of failure the plaintiff/respondent would be entitled to produce secondary evidence.
4. The petitioners assailed the aforesaid order of the Civil Judge through a revision, which was dismissed, in limine, vide impugned order dated 6-2-2002. Hence, this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the impugned order of the High Court is against law, facts and circumstances of the case, that the petitioners were not nrovided an ample opportunity of hearing; that they have been condemned unheard, which was against the rule of natural justice; that the impugned order is also against the provision of Order 41, rule 27, C.P.C. As well as Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and minutely perused the material available on record. The order of the High Court directing the petitioners to produce the documents in question, in all fairness, is quite in accordance with law. The trial Court was justified in allowing the application, and the learned High Court, too, with sound and cogent reasons dismissed the revision petition. We do not find any jurisdictional error or misconstruction of law. Furthermore, question of general public importance, as contemplated under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not involved in this case.
7. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.