P L D 1996 Lahore 340 (PLP)

This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 11‑5‑1982, of Additional District Judge, Faisalabad whereby the revision of Muhammad Sadiq deceased respondent was accepted.

2. The facts in brief are that Muhammad Sadiq deceased respondent/defendant entered into an agreement to sell a portion of a house the property in dispute with the petitioner for a total sale consideration of Rs.35,000 vide agreements dated 11‑4‑1978 and 24‑5‑1978. At the time of the agreements Rs.25,000 Were received by the defendant as earnest money and possession was delivered to the petitioner. On the refusal of the defendant to get the sale‑deed registered in favoui of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a suit on 4‑12‑1979 for specific performance of agreements to sell. Muhammad Sadiq submitted his written statement, admitted the execution of the agreements but denied the right of the petitioner to get the agreements enforced and took up the plea that at the most petitioner was entitled to get back his amount paid by him. After framing issues, the petitioner led his evidence and completed the same in March, 1981 and while the suit was pending for recording of the defendant's evidence, the defendant Muhammad Sadiq gave an application on 15‑9‑1981 seeking permission to place on record the copy of inheritance mutation of Mst. Mukhtar Begum No.568 dated 31‑12‑1980. The petitioner contested the application and the learned Civil Judge, Jaranwala vide his order, dated 27‑1‑1982, dismissed the same on the grounds that the document ought to be produced was not relevant for the purposes of the decision of the subject‑matter in dispute, that the application had been moved at a belated stage and that the respondent had not prayed for the amendment in the written statement. The Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide his judgment, dated 11‑5‑1982 accepted the defendants' revision petition which is under challenge in this Constitutional petition.

3. The defendant died during the pendency of this petition and his legal representative was impleaded as a party to thispetition on 8‑4‑1987 and he was proceeded ex parte on 27‑2‑1991.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the revision petition before the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad was misconceived as no revision lies against an order declining to admit oral or documentary evidence as it is not a "case decided" within the purview of section 115, C.P.C.‑ Reliance is also placed on Nawabzada Malik Habib Ullah Khan v. The Pak Cement Industries Limited and others 1969 SCMR 965.

5. In the above‑cited authority it has been clearly laid down that an order admitting or declining to admit evidence oral or documentary does not amount to a case decided within the purview of section 115, C.P.C.

6. The revision petition, therefore, was obviously not competent and the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad acted illegally in accepting the same through the impugned judgment, dated 11‑5‑1982.

7. In view of the abvoementioned this petition is accepted and the impugned judgment, dated 11‑5‑1982 of Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, is set aside with costs. A.A./M‑2658/L Petition accepted