P L D 1988 Lahore 329 (PLP)

Neither have the relevant documents been specified in the. petition nor 'has any ground ' been stated to claim dispensation of production of‑the certified copies which cannot be granted merely in routine inasmuch as it can be allowed only in appropriate cases, upon show of sufficient cause with regard to each particular document. Muchless is there any reason shown for even making an assumption about any reason for which the petitioner may not have been able to get any of the desired copies and since it has not been alleged even that any application may ever have been made for the grant of the relevant certified copies, therefore, it is more probable At thus far he may not have at all applied for the grant of any of the required ‑ certified copies. In these circumstances, the C.M. is rejected.

2. Whether or not an applicant for, dispensation of production of certified copies' is able to make' out an appropriate , case for the purpose and even if he succeeds in obtaining an order in that behalf; there cannot be any occasion to put in private reproductions of I judicial records on the files of Civil Appeals and Revisions instituted in this Court of Records because such reproductions, even if they are authenticated by a counsel of high eminence, do not come to acquire any legal status to be able to serve as a substitute for the certified copies and, hence, they cannot be brought under consideration in Civil. Appeals and Revisions. Actually, there cannot be any nexus between the prayer for dispensation and submission of private reproductions in their place so that the one does not seem capable of giving rise to a justification for the other inasmuch as it cannot be urged with any amount of reason that since an applicant for revision has produced private reproductions of judicial records therefore, their certified copies may be dispensed with and, similarly, it cannot be asserted even that since the production of certified copies has been dispensed with, therefore, private reproductions of judicial records may be accepted by way of their substitute. Thus, in either event, there does not arise any occasion for placing private reproductions of judicial records on the files of Civil Appeals and Revisions instituted in ‑this Court. Actually, this, practice of filing private reproductions of judicial records seems to have been borrowed from the one prevailing in writ petitions wherein liberty on the point is available on account of absence of statutory requirements for their documentation like those existing in Order XLI and section 115 of the C.P. C. respectively regarding Civil Appeals and Revisions which cannot be lightly ignored. Requests for dispensation of production of certified copies are' frequently made in Civil Revisions, although mostly in absence of a proper justification, yet, without realising its consequences and the dangers with which the acceptance of such a prayer may be fraught. One rational consequence of an appropriately secured order of dispensation of production of certified copy of any particular document, upon showing sufficient cause for the purpose, can be that the applicant may stand debarred at all subsequent stages to rely upon such a document.

3. Even after the rejection of his prayer for dispensation, learned counsel has insisted upon the Revision Petition being heard on the existing record. He has been heard accordingly. The proviso to subsection, (1) of Section 115 of the C.P.C. enjoins that the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded, decide the revision petition without calling for the record of the subordinate Court. There is' not made out any reason for requisitioning of the said record and this Civil Revision, therefore, becomes liable to be decided on the basis essentially of its own record.

4. Since a certified copy even of the relevant agreement does not exist on this record therefore, there is no 'material available herein to shake the reasons given by the trial Court in support of its order dated 25‑1‑1988, impugned herein. ‑ Thus, there cannot exist any sustainable plea. The Civil Revision is hence dismissed in limine A. A./T-34/L Revision dismissed.