1985 PLP 1034 (SCMR)
LEHRASAB KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AQIL‑UN‑NISA‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1034 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | LEHRASAB KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AQIL‑UN‑NISA‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1034 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1034 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1034 (SCMR) (LEHRASAB KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AQIL‑UN‑NISA‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th March, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4‑12‑1984 of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in R.S.A. No.25 of 1982). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100‑‑Second appeal‑‑Judicial discretion of High. Court‑‑Regular second appeal filed by petitioner incompetent‑‑Prayer for its conversion into civil revision not acceded to‑‑Order assailed with case‑law cited in support‑‑Whether High Court should grant such a prayer or not in given circumstances of a case being matter of judicial discretion, Supreme Court declined to interfere‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The admitted position is that a Regular Second Appeal was instituted by the petitioner on 24‑1‑1982 in the High Court in a suit whose value for purposes of jurisdiction was placed at Rs.200. It is also admitted that at this point of time second appeal whose jurisdictional value did not exceed Rs.2,000 had been abolished. Hence there is no dispute that the second appeal filed by the petitioner was incompetent. The petitioner, therefore, made a prayer before the High Court to convert his second appeal into a civil revision on 2‑12‑1984. The learned Judge in the High Court hearing the matter was not inclined to accede to this prayer at that stage. The appeal being admittedly incompetent was dismissed accordingly. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. The contention of Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner, before us was that there was no impediment in the way of the learned Judge to convert the second appeal into a revision and that in similar circumstances such requests were accepted by the High Court and this action was approved by this Court. Several judgments were cited in support of this assertion. The plea that the High Court may allow a prayer for converting a second appeal into a revision is correct. But whether it should grant' such a prayer or not in the given circumstances of a case is a matter:" of judicial discretion. In this case, the learned Judge was not persuaded, to exercise his discretion in favour of the petitioner. This is not such a matter which would warrant interference by this Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner could have, even at that stage, withdrawn his appeal and submitted a civil revision. But the fact remains that he did not adopt that course. He may even now, if so advised, do so at his risk. This petition, with these observations, is dismissed. M.I Petition dismissed.