2002SCMR1180 (PLP)
ABDUL SATTAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. JAMILA BIBI and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002SCMR1180 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. JAMILA BIBI and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002SCMR1180 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002SCMR1180 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002SCMR1180 (PLP) (ABDUL SATTAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. JAMILA BIBI and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th March, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the , order, dated 22‑2‑1999 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.251 of 1997). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.12(2) & 115‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Failure of respondent to adduce evidence in support of his application under S.12(2), C.P.C.‑‑‑Trial Court dismissed the application, but Appellate Court accepted the appeal by remanding case to Trial Court with direction to allow one opportunity to respondent for adducing evidence‑‑‑Revision petition filed by petitioners against remand order was dismissed by High Court ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Record showed that witnesses of respondents had been present on several occasions, but due to non‑availability of the file of previous suit, their statements could not be recorded‑‑‑Impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by Supreme Court‑‑ Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 22‑2‑1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.251 of 1997.
2. The relevant facts are that through an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. the judgment and decree dated 26‑4‑1992 passed by the learned trial Court in favour of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No.
1. Issues were duly framed but the application was dismissed, vide order, dated 28‑5‑1995, on account of the failure of the respondent to adduce evidence. The appeal filed by the respondents was, however, allowed by the learned appellate Court on 9‑10‑1995 and the case was remanded to the learned trial ‑ Court with a direction that it be decided by allowing one opportunity of adducing evidence to the respondents. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner took the matter in revision before the High Court but his revision petition was dismissed with the following observations:‑‑ "In order to cater the situation I direct the Court below to only afford an opportunity, which has already been given by the Court in appeal to the respondents to adduce evidence and in any case the trial of the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. be completed within three months. Any request for interim relief by the petitioner can be agitated before the Court below."
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record we find that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference. The material available on record shows that the witnesses of the petitioner were present on several occasions but their statements could not be recorded on account of non‑availability of the file of the previous suit. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./A‑203/S Leave refused.