1984 PLP 689 (CLC)

Amanat Ali Bokhari for Respondent. Date of hearing : 16th February, 1983. This order will dispose of Civil Revision No. 873 of 1982 and Civil Revision No. 874 of 1982.

2. This is a civil revision filed by a respondent in a pending civil appeal which is awaiting adjudication by a learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. .

3. The revision petition has been filed on the grievance that the im pugned order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 13th May, 1982 is susceptible of an interpretation that he has finally decided the dis pute or objections regarding the effect of non‑filing of certified copy of decree sheet alongwith the appeal. I have gone through the order of the learned Additional District Judge with the able assistance of the two counsel. I find that the apprehension is not well‑based because there is nothing to show the conscious application of mind by the learned Addi tional District Judge to the resolution of controversial questions which still beg for adjudication. The learned counsel for the respondent has also taken up the stand that there is so far no final adjudication so as to bring the matter within the ambit of case decided so as to attract the revisional jurisdiction. He submits that it will be open for the parties to raise their respective contentions and the Court in such circumstances would decide these objections after due application of mind in the light of the law governing the case while deciding the appeal.

4. I think the stand taken by the counsel for the respondent seems to be in consonance with law and the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge cannot be construed as a final order which has decided the fate of the case of the petitioner regarding the controversial question whether factually copies of decree had been filed and further as regards the effect of non‑filing of a copy of decree with the appeal. In these circumstances, it will be open for the petitioner to raise all available objections before the appellate Court. I am confident that the learned Additional District Judge who is a judicial officer will bring his mind to bear on the question in contro versy with an open mind notwithstanding the impugned order dated 13th May, 1982. He shall also hold such enquiry as may be necessary for a just decision of the case.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage has expressed an apprehension that the impugned order of the learned Additional Dis trict Judge may be construed as having finally accepted the application dated 5th May, 1982 and decided the issue once for all. I have already noted that this is not the true import of the order of the learned Additional District Judge. The mere fact that an order has been passed in terms that a copy be placed on the record cannot be construed as condoning any lapse on the part of the respondent if it is fatal to the case.

6. There is a belated consensus between the two learned counsel that this would be a just order even if I take the view that a revision petition would be competent in the present case.

7. With these observations the revision petition is disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 23rd February, 1983. M. A. K. Order accordingly.