Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MAQBOOL AHMAD VS Respondent: KHAWAJA AFZALHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1988 S C M R 1499
1988 S C M R 1499
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
MAQBOOL AHMAD‑‑Petitioner
versus
Khawaja AFZAL and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.202 of 1988, decided on 4th June, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26‑1‑1988 in Writ Petition No. 53 of 1988) .
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑Discretionary jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Counsel not producing necessary documents‑‑Consequences of‑ Counsel for petitioners refusing to produce necessary documents required for disposal of case on merits and insisting that matter should be decided on basis of documents already on file‑‑No attempts made by counsel to procure those documents‑‑High Court, held, was justified in dismissing writ petition in its discretionary jurisdiction.
Ch.imtiaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 4th June, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in this election matter against the dismissal of a Constitutional petition by the High Court.
It has been observed in the impugned order as follows:‑---
"The learned counsel refused to accept any adjournment of the case in order to place on record the required documents and insisted that the matter should be decided on the basis of the two documents already placed on file of this case."
We asked the learned counsel whether an application was made for obtaining the copies of the required documents. He answered in the negative. On our further question whether a written application was filed before the High Court for direction to the officers concerned to supply copies of the said document to the petitioner. The learned counsel answered this question also in the negative. He, however, stated that the statement ‑of fact reproduced above is not strictly in accordance with what happened in the High Court. When questioned whether the learned counsel had submitted a formal written statement at the bar or otherwise in form of the affidavit in support of this contention, he answered in the negative.
In the aforenoted circumstances, we agree with the High Court that in absence of the required documents and further in view of the attitude of the learned counsel with regard to production thereof, it had become almost impossible for the High Court to decide the case on merits. The responsibility in this behalf cannot be placed on the High Court. That being so, the petitioner's writ petition was rightly dismissed in the discretionary jurisdiction. M.I./M‑487/S Petition dismissed.