1990 PLP 913 (SCMR)
ALI MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus RAHMATULLAH‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 913 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ALI MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus RAHMATULLAH‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 913 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 913 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 913 (SCMR) (ALI MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus RAHMATULLAH‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st October, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 25‑2‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Civil Revision No.57 of 19,,96). ‑‑‑OXXIII, R.1‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Withdrawal of suit‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Petitioner, claiming to be mortgagee of house owned by respondent, filed against respondent suit for recovery of amount as mortgage. debt as well as compensation for use and occupation of house‑‑‑Suit filed by petitioner, however, was finally dismissed by Courts below as petitioner could not establish his claim by placing on record mortgage deed or any rent note‑‑ Petitioner failing to give any explanation for not placing mortgage deed or rent note on record at trial, prayed for permission to withdraw suit with permission to file fresh one‑‑‑Permission to File afresh suit, held, could not be granted just because during course of trial petitioner had omitted to produce evidence which he ought to have led before Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑OXXIII, R.1‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Withdrawal of suit‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Petitioner, claiming to be mortgagee of house owned by respondent, filed against respondent suit for recovery of amount as mortgage. debt as well as compensation for use and occupation of house‑‑‑Suit filed by petitioner, however, was finally dismissed by Courts below as petitioner could not establish his claim by placing on record mortgage deed or any rent note‑‑ Petitioner failing to give any explanation for not placing mortgage deed or rent note on record at trial, prayed for permission to withdraw suit with permission to file fresh one‑‑‑Permission to File afresh suit, held, could not be granted just because during course of trial petitioner had omitted to produce evidence which he ought to have led before Court. Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st October, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner claiming himself to be the mortgagee of a house owned by the respondent, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.9,620 against the latter. The amount claimed represented the mortgage debt as well as the compensation for the use and occupation of the house by the respondent. The respondent denied that he had ever mortgaged the house with the petitioner or that after the creation of the mortgage he had taken the house on rent from him. After a regular trial, the Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the petitioner had failed to place on record the mortgage deed or the rent note allegedly executed by the respondent. Its judgment was affirmed by the Additional District judge in appeal and by the High Court in revision. Now, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to give any explanation why the petitioner did not produce the mortgage deed or the rent note at the trial. He however prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one. We are unable to accept this request, for permission to file a fresh suit cannot be granted just because during the course of the trial the petitioner had omitted to produce evidence which he ought to have led before the Court. Leave is refused. H.B.T./A‑654/S Leave refused.