1984 PLP 1225 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASGHAR — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1225 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASGHAR — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT and 3 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1225 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1225 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1225 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASGHAR — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zakiuddin Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Zakiuddin Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th March, 1984. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑ The petitioner is a‑vendee in a pre emption suit and seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 11th July, 1983 whereby his constitutional petition challenging the decision of the revisional Court, dated 26th March, 1983 was dismissed. The petitioner in a pre‑emption suit instituted by the respondents 2 to 4 closed his evidence on 18‑11‑1978. All the same on 23‑10‑1981 he applied for producing certain documents by way of additional evidence which application was allowed on 9‑2‑1983 on costs reserving the right of the other party to rebut such evidence. By his order dated 26‑3‑1983 the District Judge allowed the revision petition and refused the permission to lead additional evidence. The learned Judge in the High Court in dismissing the constitutional petition was guided by a decision of this Court in Rehman Dad and another v. Major Raja Sajawal Khan etc. 1976 S C M R
350. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is ample authority of this Court that a permission to produce additional evidence does not amount to 'case decided' and such an order is not amenable to revision under section 115 of the C.P.C. He has relied on Habibullah Khan v. Pak. Cement Industries Ltd. 1969 S C M R
965. He has also referred to the decision of the Lahore High Court itself in Mst; Fazal Begum v. Bahadur Khan and another P L D 1983 Lah.
365. We consider that an authoritative pronouncement on the question is required and also whether the revisional jurisdiction in such circumstances should be controlled by discretionary constitutional jurisdiction possessed by the superior Courts. The decision of the District Judge allowing the revision petition is suspended ad interim so as to enable the trial Court to conclude the proceedings before him as expeditiously as possible as much delay has already taken place on account of these proceedings. Security in the sum of Rs.2,
500. S. Q. Leave granted.