' Heard.
2. In a suit for grant of a declaratory decree with perpetual injunction as consequential relief, the respondents/defendants moved an application seeking necessary permission to call a witness alongwith a document. Same however, was turned down, by learned Civil Judge, seized of the matter, on the grounds that neither the document had been relied upon nor list of witnesses had been furnished inasmuch as relevancy and necessity of document for adjudication of the matters in controversy had not been hinted at and explained.
3. Revision against said order was accepted by Ch. Akbar Ali Cheema, learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, with the observations that it was unfair on the part of the Court to shut the case to one or other party on account of inadvertent omission; discretion has ordinarily to be exercised for the benefit of litigant party unless it is proved that such party is at fault and guilty of contumacious conduct or negligence not excusable and that material irregularity had been committed in declining the permission, asked for. Expediency of R.L. II 24 for just decision of the case was even felt.
4. Such revisional order dated 27-6-1996 has been impugned and called in question in this Constitutional Petition.
5. Reiterating the factors, points and grounds urged in the petition, learned counsel tor the petitioners has remarked that discretion could not be exercised in favour of a party, who, had failed to rely upon the document and furnish list of witnesses as against relevant provisions of law, which, according to him, stand couched in mandatory form. Also it has been canvassed that the document now allowed to be produced into evidence can be of little help for the fair decision of the case inasmuch as the entries of Jamabandis are of conclusive effect.
6. Conversely, impugned order has been acclaimed to be correct in all respects with the contention that the same cannot be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
7. Following illuminating observations made in Mst. Iqbal Begum through her Legal Heirs v.
Muhammad Akbar and 5 others (1992 CLC 232) are applicable on all fours to the facts of the instant case:-- "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 in 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 '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.
' 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 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.
' 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 revisbale under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code.
' Consequently, it cannot be said that the impugned revisional order passed by the learned District Judge was an order without jurisdiction.
' 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 Bakhsh's case reported as 1985 CLC 387.
' 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 Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court only because a different view was possible on the facts placed before the said learned Court."
8. There can be no cavil with the fact that the evidence permitted to be adduced on record is almost of documentary character and the same might facilitate complete and effectual decision of matters in controversy.
9. In this wake, no interference in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is called for as, in particular, neither illegal assumption or irregular exercise of jurisdiction nor perversity or arbitrariness in the matter is borne or spelled out.
10. Petition, consequently, merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed in limine.