Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SIDDIQA BEGUM VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF SIND
1988 C L C 1893
1988 C L C 1893
[Karachi]
Before Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and
Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, JJ
Mst. SIDDIQA BEGUM and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF SIND and others‑‑Respondents
Constitutional Petition No. D‑147 of 1987, decided on 4th March, 1987.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑0. XIII, R. 1‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Application for production of document‑‑Exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction‑ Petitioner's application for summoning of documents at evidence stage was rejected by Trial Court on ground that such documents were neither mentioned in plaint nor in list of witnesses or documents filed by petitioner /plaintiff and further on ground that procedure prescribed in C .P . C . was not availed of in respect of production of such documents‑‑Order passed by Trial Court exercising its dis cretionary powers, held, was not wrong‑‑Petitioner, however, could agitate matter in appeal in case suit was decided against him, but exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court would not be appropriate for such grievance.
Azhar Ali Siddiqui for Petitioners.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.‑‑The petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the IInd Senior Civil Judge (East) Karachi on 8‑10‑1986 rejecting the application made by the petitioners/ plaintiffs for summoning of the documents. The petitioner has also felt aggrieved against the order in Revision passed on 6‑1‑1987 by D.J. Karachi East, dismissing the Revision Application of the petitioner. The matter was at the stage of issues which were framed on 28‑8‑1986 and thereafter the evidence was to be recorded on 28‑9‑1986 in pursuance of the direction of the High Court to proceed expeditiously with the matter as the suit of the petitioner was of 1972. The matter did not proceed on 8‑9‑1986 and the same proceeded for evidence on 13‑9‑1986. The plaintiff /petitioner was being examined when this application for summoning the documents was made.
The Civil Judge rejected the said application on the ground that the documents were not mentioned in the plaint nor in the list of witnesses or documents filed by the plaintiff and further on the ground that the procedure prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code was not availed of in respect of the production of such documents. There is no wrong in the order passed by the Civil Judge as it was discretionary with him to allow the application of the petitioner/ plaintiff at this stage. The plaintiff /petitioner, if unsuccessful in his suit, can agitate the matter in the ultimate appeal which can be filed by him. The exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of. the High Court is not appropriate for such grievance and, therefore, this petition is dismissed in limine. Miscellaneous Application is also dismissed.
H.B.T./S‑187/K Petition dismissed.