1. ' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This Intra-Court Appeal assailed judgment dated 20-9-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court in Writ Petition No,15933 of 2005, whereby writ for issuance of "copy of a copy" by the Copying Agency of District Courts, Lahore, was declined to be issued.
2. 2.Succinctly, relevant facts are that appellant filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and recovery of Rs,24,000 against National Institute of Public Administration and others but the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment/decree dated 3-5-2005. Appellant applied for certified copies of the judgment/decree passed by the trial Court along with copies of two documents namely memos. Dated 21-2-1995 and 14-6-1995 issued by Establishment Division, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. The certified copies of the memos. Were refused to be issued by the Copying Agency on the ground that copy of a copy cannot be issued Appellant aggrieved of refusal of the Copying Agency to issue the certified copies of the memos.
3. Above referred, filed a constitutional petition (P. W.15933/2005) which was dismissed, as noted above. He thereafter, filed appeal in hand and in response to notice by this Court respondents appeared and opposed the same.
4. 3.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the memos. In question were not received in evidence by the trial Court but the same were marked thus those constituted record of the judicial acts and were to be considered as public documents in terms of Article 85 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and as such certified copies thereof under its Article 87 were to be issued by the Copying Agency concerned and that under para.1.27 of the Punjab Copying Agencies Manual, copy of a copy could not be refused if the same has been expressly asked for have not impressed us to upset well-reasoned judgment by the learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court, for multiple reasons. The first reason for our declining to interfere is that appellant has not brought anything on record to show that Punjab Copying Agencies Manual which contains Rules relating to supply of copies of records under the control of Deputy Commissioners, Commissioners and Financial Commissioners were adopted by this Court and were applicable to the Copying Agencies under the control of District Courts. The Manual relied was published under the authority of Financial Commissioner of the Punjab and would not apply ipso facto to the Copying Agencies under the Control of District Courts unless those Rules/instructions are adopted by this Court.
5. Assuming but without conceding, if the Manual relied by the appellant was applicable to the Copying Agencies under the Control of District Courts, even in that case its para.1.27 clearly laid that copy of a copy can only be issued if the person applying requires it in order to call in question the correctness of an already issued copy. For convenience purposes para.1.27 is reproduced as under:-- "1.27. A copy of a copy shall not be granted unless expressly asked for as such; as, for instance, in order to call in question the correctness of the copy granted. The fact that it is so required shall be entered in the heading and it shall be marked as "copy of a copy"."
6. ' The above reproduced provision of Punjab Copying Agencies Manual depicts that person applying for copy of a copy should be in possession of copy of the document applied and must detail its object of calling in question the correctness of copy already in his possession but appellant's case was not covered by it.
4. Language of Article 87 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 is also relevant for answering the question hinged, as it mandates to every public officer being in custody of a public document which any person has a right to inspect, to issue copy on demand and payment of legal fee. Keeping in view this provision of law, we have no ambiguity that Copying Agency under the control of District Courts was not in custody of original memos. Copies of which were applied by the appellant, whereas originals of those were with Establishment Division, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, and were addressed to NAB. In these circumstances, appellant could not call upon the Copying Agency under the control of District Courts to issue certified copies of those letters, which were not in their custody/control. We have also examined Volume V of the High Court Rules and Orders under the heading of "description of copies" wherein copies to be supplied have been divided into three kinds namely, attested copies for private use, attested copies for general use and unattested copies of plaints, exhibits and depositions prepared by the Courts'
7. Stenographers under the orders of Presiding Judge. Under none of these headings, certified copy of a copy has been dealt or directed to be issued. Similarly its Volume I, Chapter 1-G relating to documentary evidence deals with the provision of Order VII, Rule 14, C.P.C. But this provision of law deals with documents in possession or power of the plaintiff, which he has to file along with plaint and copies thereof are to be provided to his adversaries. This provision of law is also not relevant for the purposes of the appellant.
5. We have to remark that memos. Copies of which have been applied by the appellant, were not tendered in evidence that is why those were given Mark 'A' and 'W. As a matter of law, the learned trial Judge, cognizant of the suit, should have returned those documents which were not admissible and were not received in evidence, as law on the subject was unambiguous and Order XIII, Rule 7(2), C.P.C. Requires the Courts that, documents which were not admitted in evidence, shall not be made part of the record and shall be returned to the persons respectively producing them.
8. This provision if was overlooked by the learned trial Judge and would not confer any right on the appellant to get certified copies of the documents not inadvertently returned to the party producing. A Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the provisions of Articles 85, 87 and 88 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 laid in the case of Mst. Kasloom Begum v. Ahmad Raza Bukhari PLD 1999 Lah.231 that written instruments are divisible into two classes namely public and private.
9. Public documents were classified as consist of act of public functionaries in the executive, legislative and judicial discharge of functions and were entered in discharge of such duties. In this precedent case, copy from a certified copy issued by the Settlement Authorities placed on record of this Court, was refused to be issued on the ground that this Court had no nexus with the original record of the Settlement Department, as in charge of Copying Agency of this Court cannot certify copies to be correct from the original record. Scan of record, impugned order and the entire law applicable, revealed that 'copy of a copy' cannot be issued on the basis of any canon and the appellant must get those copies from the offices with whom the originals are or should be available.
10. 6.For the reasons noted above, writ was correctly declined to be issued by the learned Single Judge and we are not persuaded to take a different view to the one expressed in the order under appeal and consequently instant appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.