Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHAIR DIN VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD AFZAL
1988 S C M R 1966
1988 S C M R 1966
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ
KHAIR DIN‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.243 of 1982, decided on 31st July, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 13‑2‑1982 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in Civil Revision No.455 of 1981).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑S.115‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art .185 (3)‑‑Petitioner's plea that respondent's earlier application was rejected not entertained by High Court because certified copy of relevant order was not produced‑‑Petitioner unable to satisfy that plea raised from his side could succeed without production of relevant document before the Court concerned‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Sh.Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 31st July 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff against the dismissal of his civil revision in canal management case. The petitioner having failed before the canal authorities regarding a change of outlet, filed a civil suit, which was dismissed. His appeal and civil revision having also been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
The learned counsel has contended that an earlier application filed from the respondent's side, was rejected. Subsequent application for the same purpose as such was barred by law. Same plea was raised before the High Court, which was repelled with the observation that no certified copy of the relevant order regarding the earlier rejection having been produced by the petitioner, his plea was not entertainable.
The learned counsel after some arguments failed to satisfy u: that the plea raised from the petitioner's side could succeed without the production of relevant documents before the Court concerned. Thus, leave to appeal is refused.
M.I./K‑73/S Petition dismissed.