' One Mst. Iqbal Begum, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners had brought a suit on 2-4-1984 against her brothers, seeking a declaration that Mutation No, 1028 entered on 11-12-1982 and sanctioned by A.C.-II of Sahiwal on 30-12-1982, evidencing transfer of her land in favour of her said brothers was void being fraudulent. She had also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents Timm laying any claim on the land in dispute in any manner whatsoever.
2. The said suit was contested by the present respondents and after framing of issues, the aforesaid Mst. Iqbal Begum led her evidence and closed the same on 31-1-1985.
3. The defendants in the said suit who are respondents before this Court examined two witnesses in defence of the suit and their learned counsel made a statement on 4-6-1985 that except the statement of the defendants themselves and except for production of certain documents, the defendants close their evidence and sought time for examining the said defendants and production of the said documents.
4. They, however, made an application on 25-10-1987 praying for permission to examine two more witnesses, namely, Halqa Patwari and the Halqa Girdawar who had been cited as defence witnesses in the list of witnesses filed with the written statement and who according to the defendants were material witnesses for a just decision of the case.
5. This application was resisted by the present petitioners on the ground that the defendants had already closed their evidence and had given No cogent reason for grant of permission to adduce the additional evidence.
6. After hearing the parties, a learned Civil Judge at Sahiwal, through his order dated 16-11-1987, dismissed the said application against which a revision was filed before the learned District Judge who accepted the said petition and allowed the defendants/respondents to produce the aforementioned Patwari and Girdawar as additional evidence on payment of Rs,500 as costs.
7. It is this revisional order of the learned District Judge dated 15-9-1988 which is being impugned by the present petitioners through this Constitutional petition which was primarily admitted to consider whether an order disallowing additional evidence amounted to a 'CASE DECIDED' within the meaning of section 115 of the C.P.C. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Nawabzada Malik Habibullah Khan's case reported as 1969 SCM R 965.
8. Relying upon the said decision of the Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that allowing or disallowing additional evidence did Not amount to a 'CASE DECIDED' within the purview of section 115 of the C.P.C. And thus the impugned revisional order passed by the learned District Judge was an order without jurisdiction which deserved to be annulled.
9. The aforementioned view of the Supreme Court loses significance because of a judgment of the same Court delivered in Abdul Aziz Shah's case reported a 1985 SCM R 221.
10. It was declared by the Supreme Court in the said Abdul Aziz Shah's case that a decision given by the Supreme Court on a petition while refusing leave could Not be regarded as a considered judgment and relying upon Bashir Ahmad Khan's case reported as PLD 1973 SC 507, it was held that if a subordinate Court had rendered a decision in respect of any state of facts after judicially considering the same, then it would amount to a 'CASE DECIDED' and after discussing various aspects of the matter the Supreme Court had held that rejecting the prayer for the amendment of a plaint fell within the ambit of section 115 of the C.P.C.
11. Needless to mention that Nawabzada Malik Habibullah Khan's case mentioned above, was a case where allowing or disallowing of additional evidence was held Not to be revisable under section 115 of the C.P.C., was a decision given in a leave-refusing order which according to Abdul Aziz Shah's case was Not a considered judgment and thus Not the law declared on the subject.
12. Examining the present case in the light of the Abdul Aziz Shah's case, disallowing the additional evidence by the learned trial Court which was obviously a decision given by it in respect of certain facts after judicially considering the same and which also had the effect of shutting out the defendants' claim to the extent to which additional evidence was sought to be produced, was an order which amounted to a 'CASE DECIDED' and thus revisable under section 115 of the C.P.C.
13. Consequently, it canNot be said that the impugned revisional order passed by the learned District Judge was an order without jurisdiction.
14. Therefore, No jurisdictional defect exists in the impugned order which could warrant interference by this Court through its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction which jurisdiction this Court is even otherwise reluctant to exercise to intervene with the revisional orders passed by the District Judges which orders, the law after conferment of the revisional jurisdiction on the District Judges, are intended to be final and Not open to any further scrutiny by the High Court. Reference may be made to Rahim Bukhsh's case reported as 1985 CLC 387.
15. Even on merits, No perversity or arbitrariness could be demonstrated in the impugned revisional order which indicates exercise of jurisdiction by the learned District Judge after a proper and judicial application of mind to the lis before him. The said order canNot be set at naught in the exercise of the Consditutional jurisdiction of this Court only because a different view was possible on the facts placed before the said learned Court.
16. Consequently, the order impugned through the present constitutional petition warrants No interference as a result whereof, this petition merits rejection and is accordingly dismissed.
17. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
18. The record received from the learned lower Court shall be returned to the said Court forthwith.