Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, J.-- The appellants, herein, filed a writ petition before the High Court on 01.01.2013 for quashment of FIR No. 72/2012 dated 21.12.2012 registered at Police Station Islamgarh in the offences under sections 384, 389, 410, 420 and 109 APC. The learned High Court admitted the writ petition for regular hearing and thereafter vide impugned judgment dated 01.04.2016 dismissed the same for non-compliance of Rule 32(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred as Rules, 1984), hence this appeal by leave of the Court.
2. Raja Inamullah Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants after narration of necessary facts submitted that through the impugned judgment the learned High Court has dismissed the writ petition on the sole ground of non-furnishing the certified copy of the FIR. Even according to the proceedings conducted in the writ petition the impugned judgment is not according to principle of administration of justice. No doubt, under the provisions of Rule 32(2) of Rules, 1984 furnishing of certified copy of the impugned order is required but it relates to initial stage of filing the writ petition. According to law, it is the duty of the Court's officials to point out such requirement at the time of presentation of the writ petition but in this case nothing has been pointed out in this regard. The learned Judge, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, called pre-admission comments from the respondents on 01.01.2013. The comments were filed and vide order dated 12.01.2013 the writ petition was admitted for regular hearing after hearing the counsel for the parties. After admission once again the respondents filed written statement in which they have not only admitted the contents of FIR No. 74/2012 as correct but also annexed the certified copy of same. It is proved from the record that the responde nts raised no objection and the certified copy of the FIR was also availa ble on the record but amazingly after hearing final arguments the writ petition has been dismissed on the sole ground of non-furnishing the certified copy of FIR which is not according to law and principle of administration of justice. The basic purpose of furnishing the certified copy is to assist the Court by producing reliable evidence and once such evidence is available the writ petition cannot be dismissed merely on technical ground. This Court has already held that if the document is admitted by the other party , in that case the writ petition cannot be dismissed mere for non-compliance of Rule 32(2) of Rules, 1984. He referred to the case reported as Shahida Khadim vs. Secretary Education AJ&K & others [2002 SCR 315] and submitted that while accepting this appeal the impugned judgment be set-aside.
3. Conversely , Sardar Muhammad Raziq Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents seriously opposed the appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment is according to rules and principle of law enunciated by this Court. There is no illegality . Furnishing of the certified copy of impugned order in the writ petition is mandatory requirement and if the same is not fulfilled then the case has to be dismissed on this ground. He referred to the case reported as M. Ashfaq & others vs. Azad Govt. & others [2003 SCR 260].
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record made available. According to the interim orders of the High Court the writ petition was presented on 01.01.2013. The office of the High Court entertained the writ petition after scrutiny and placed before the learned Judge on the same date who after examination of the record issued notices to the respondents for filing parawise comments. The comments were filed in which no objection regarding the authenticity of the FIR was raised rather recording of the FIR was admitted as correct. Thereafter , the learned Judge of the High Court heard the counsel for the parties and vide order dated 12.01.2013 admitted the writ petition for regular hearing with the direction to the respondents to file written statement, documents and affidavits, if any. The respondents filed written state ment alognwith bulk of record including the certified copy of the FIR which is available at page 116 of the file of High Court. It is clear that neither the office of the High Court raised any objection at the time of presentation of the writ petition nor the learned Judge at the time of preliminary hearing on 01.01.2013 dismissed the writ petition for non-compliance of Rule 32(2) of Rules, 1984. The learned Judge, after hearing the parties and perusing the record, issued notices to the respondents to file pre-admission comments in which they have admitted the recording of FIR as correct. After detailed hearing of the counsel for the parties and examining all the record, the writ petition was admitted for regular hearing without pointing out any discrepancy . The written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents alongwith record including the certified copy of the impugned FIR.
5. According to the scheme of Rules, 1984 the proceedings in the writ petition have to be conducted gradually and step-wise. It appears that the requirement of furnishing certified copy under Rule 32(2) relates to the stage of presentation of the writ petition and once in writ petition the notices are issued to the parties and thereafter the writ petition is admitted for regular hearing, the matter of furnishing certified copy is over. Thereafter , Rule 38 comes into operation which empowers the High Court to pass any order as deemed fit or follow such procedure as may appear to it to be just. In this case, althoug h the certified copy was not furnished by the petitioners but neither at the stage of presentation of writ petition this deficiency was pointed out nor the learned Judge at two stages i.e., at the time of issuing notices for pre-admission comments and at the time of admission of writ petition for regular hearing, dismissed the writ petition on this ground. Thereafter , when the authenticity of the document was admitted by the respondents and the certified copy of the impugned FIR was also available, dismissal of writ petition on this sole ground does not appear to be just. Under Rule 38, keeping in view the important role of the High Court in relation to writ jurisdiction the High Court is not chained with strict rules rather it is empowere d to liberally adopt or follow the procedure for determination of questions on such other evidence and in such manner as may appear to it to be just. The basic purpose is to exercise the powers for ends of justice and not technically knocking out the party which may result into miscarriage of justice. The counsel for the appellants have rightly relied upon the principle of law laid down by this Court in the case reported as Shahida Khadim vs. Secretary Education AJ&K & others [2002 SCR 315]. This principle has also been laid down in recent case titled Muhammad Riaz Chohan vs. Malik Abdul Rehman (Civil Appeal No. 274/2014 decided on 28.10.2016), wherein it has been held as follows: "6. The next important point raised is the non-compliance of statutory provisions of Rule 32(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court (Procedure) Rules, 1984. The examination of the record reveals that the petitioner- appellant in writ petition has challenged the order of the appellate authority , District Judge, dated 30.05.2005 through which the appeal against the order of the Rent Controller dated 30.11.2004 has been dismissed. The certified copy of the order of the appellate authority has been furnished, whereas, only the photocopy of the order of Rent Controller dated 30.11.2004 has been annexed. The petitioner-appellant has also filed an application alongwith writ petition wherein it has been mentioned that despite application the certified copies have not been supplied. The office of the High Court has reported regarding completion of writ petition according to rules and no objection has been raised regarding non-furnishing of the certified copies. Moreover , the respondents have also not challenged the correctness of the order of the Rent Controller rather they have admitted it as correct which is a judicial order . In this state of affairs, according to celebrated principle of law the order of the subordinate forum merges into the order of the higher forum. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the appellate authority the certified copy of which has been furnished, thus, the substantial compliance of Rule 32(2) has been made. Moreover , the office of the High Court has not raised any objection at the time of filing of writ petition, whereas, the appellant has filed an application alognwith writ petition that despite applying for the certified copy of the order dated 30.11.2004 (P-I), the same has not been furnished. The correctness of this order has not been disputed by the other party , thus, according to the principle of law enunciated by this Court in a number of cases including Shahida Khadim vs. Secretary Education and others [2002 SCR 315] that when infact a document is admitted by the other party in that case the writ petition cannot be dismissed for non-compliance of provisions of Rule 32(2). This view has been upheld by this Court in a recent full Court judgm ent delivered in the case titled Messrs. Friends Technical Engineering & others vs. Barrister Iftikhar Gillani & others [Civil Appeal No. 305/2014 decided on 18.04.2016]. It has been observed in paragraph 6 as follows:-
6. While attending the other objection regarding non-annexing of certified copies of the documents along with the writ petitions, it may be stated that the documents annexed with the writ petitions are admitted by the other party and it is settled principle of law that the documents once admitted by a party cannot be objected later on by the passage of time. The appellants, herein , in the High Court have admitted the documents relied upon by the respondents, herein, and no objection whatsoever was raised by them, therefore, in such scenario, we are of the view that no violation of rule 32(2) of the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 was made. Same like proposition came under consideration of this Court in a case reported as Shahida Khadim v. Secretary Education AJ&K and 5 others [2002 SCR 315], wherein this Court has observed as under:-
9. The High Court mainly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that only photostat copies of documents have been placed on record by the appellant and even the atteste d copy of appointment order of respondent No.3 was not placed on record by the appellant. To substantiate the above contention the learned counsel for respondent No.3, Ch. Muhammad Riaz Alam, submitted that under rule 32(2) of the AJ&K High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, it has been provided as under:- The application shall set out the name and description of the applicant, the exact nature of the relief sought and the ground on which it is sought and shall be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the facts relied on, a certified copy of the impugned order and at least two copies thereof including annexures, if any, in addition to separate copy for each one of the respondents. The annexures accompanying the petition shall be marked numerically in red ink by the petitioner and the petition shall be properly indexed.
The above contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 is correct that the copy of the impugned order as provided under the High Court Procedure Rules must be attached but the position is totally different when the averments made by the appellant and the documents relied upon by her are admitted from the opposite side. In the instant case the appellant' s assertion that she stood first in the test and interview in accordance with the merit list stands admitted by the respondents. Similarly after the appointment of appellant, the appointment of respondent No.3 also stands admitted by the respondents. In such a situation it was not necessary on the part of the appellant to attach with the writ petition the attested copies of the documents especially so when the some were admitted by the respondents.'
Even otherwise, it appears from the record that the documents annexed with the writ petition titled Barrister Iftikhar Ali Gillani and other v. Messers Friends Technical Engineering Association are duly attested. As through both the writ petitions, notification dated 12.12.2012, was challenged, therefore, dismissal of one writ petition on the ground of non-filing of the certified copies will bring no fruits when the other writ petition on the same subject was filed while annexing duly certified copies.'
For the above stated reasons the objection of non-furnishing the certified copies, in view of peculiar facts of this case, has no substance. Therefore, the objection is overruled."
6. So far as the case law referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, in view of hereinabove mentioned facts, it has no relevance.
For the above stated reasons while accepting this appeal and setting-aside the impugned judgment of the High Court the writ petition is remanded to the High Court for decision on merits within a period of two months from communication of this order .