1981 PLP 675 (CLC)
Syed ASHRAF ALI‑ — Petitioners Versus ALI MOHOMED KHAN‑Respondent.
| Citation | 1981 PLP 675 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar, J |
| Parties | Syed ASHRAF ALI‑ — Petitioners Versus ALI MOHOMED KHAN‑Respondent. |
| Primary Law | Evidence Act (I of 1872) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 675 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evidence Act (I of 1872) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 675 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 675 (CLC) (Syed ASHRAF ALI‑ — Petitioners Versus ALI MOHOMED KHAN‑Respondent.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nisar Ally for Petitioner.
- Khalilur Rehman for Respondent.
- Dates of hearing : 1st and 8th November, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 73‑Comparison of signatures--Court comparing disputed signatures of respondent on a receipt with his admitted signatures on plaint .‑Held : Court if convinced by other evidence as to signatures on document being not genuine then merely because Court has compared with signatures obtained afterwards, by itself cannot be a ground for vitiating entire proceedings‑Every error of subordinate Court‑Does not require interference‑High: Court refrains from interfering unless some substantial injustice directly resulted from material misapprehen sion or application of law or from a material error in procedure.
Judgment & Decree
ALI MOHOMED KHAN‑Respondent. Civil Revision Application No. 144 of 1977, decided on 30th November. 1980. ‑‑ S. 73‑Comparison of signatures--Court comparing disputed signatures of respondent on a receipt with his admitted signatures on plaint .‑Held : Court if convinced by other evidence as to signatures on document being not genuine then merely because Court has compared with signatures obtained afterwards, by itself cannot be a ground for vitiating entire proceedings‑Every error of subordinate Court‑Does not require interference‑High: Court refrains from interfering unless some substantial injustice directly resulted from material misapprehen sion or application of law or from a material error in procedure. Nisar Ally for Petitioner. Khalilur Rehman for Respondent. Dates of hearing : 1st and 8th November, 1980.