P L D 1952 Azad J (PLP)

NIAZ AHMAD, J.‑This is an application for revision of an order of the Sub‑Judge, Muzaffarabad dated 17th November 1951, whereby he admitted a document presented by the plain tiff at a very late stage of the case and permitted him to produce evidence regarding the execution of the document. The Sub‑Judge admitted the document on the grounds that it was over 30 years old, was written on stamped paper, it was produced from proper custody and the plaintiff being an illiterate lady could not produce it earlier. The applicant challenges the correctness of this order. Shah Abdul Hamid Advocate, counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the order being interlocutory and having been given in a pending case, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in revision under section 115 Civil P. C. It is argued that as the Sub‑Judge has not decided any substantial question in controversy between the parties effecting their rights, his order admitting a docu ment in a case which is still pending does not constitute a decision of the case within the meaning of section 115 Civil P. C., specially when the Sub‑Judge had jurisdiction to decide the point and he exercised that jurisdiction properly: The suit is still pending before the Sub‑Judge and no point of importance or any issue bas been decided so far. Counsel for the applicant places his reliance on (Bibi Gurduri represented by Prithvi Raj Khosla v. Muhammad Bakhsh and others) A I R 1943 Lah. 65 in which a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court held that an interlocutory order staying a suit is a case decided within the meaning of section 115 Civil P. C. This case does not help the applicant. The applicant is asking this Court to interfere with an interlocutory order which merely decides whether certain evidence is admissible. This order does not, however, go to the roots of the case or termi nate the proceedings. The decision of any point in a pending case cannot be regarded as a case decided and is not revisable. Counsel for the applicant has failed to cite any case in which any High Court interfered in revision on the ground that a certain document had been improperly admitted by the trial Court. The order of the Sub‑judge does not relate to any substantial question in controversy between the parties and it has not prevented further progress of the suit. Moreover, it was within the competence of the Sub‑Judge to decide whether a document not produced at the first hearing should or should not be admitted in evidence at a very late stage. He had jurisdiction to decide the point and his exercise of jurisdiction was not irregular. Orders which do not decide anything as to the issues but merely endeavour to collect the material in order to decide the case would not be orders which decide any case and when there has been no material irregularity in the exercise of such jurisdiction, the High Court would not interfere in revision. The application is therefore rejected. Announced. A. H. Application rejected.