1972 PLP 374 (SCMR)
GHULAM FARID AND 21 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus GAHROO AND 12 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1972 PLP 374 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM FARID AND 21 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus GAHROO AND 12 OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 374 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 374 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 374 (SCMR) (GHULAM FARID AND 21 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus GAHROO AND 12 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Pervaiz Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. K. Tamimi, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 2nd October 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 22nd February 1971, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 521 of 1971 in R. S. A. No. 859 of 1970). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 27‑Production of additional evidence in appellate Court‑When permissible. Under Order XLI, rule 27 of C. P. C. the parties to an appeal are debarred from producing additional evidence in the appellate Court unless the Court on whose decree the appeal has been preferred has refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted, or unless the appellate Court requires any document to be produced to enable it to pronounce judgment, of for any other substantial cause. The petitioner never asked for putting any additional evidence before the trial Court or even before the First Appellate Court. Under Order XXIII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court can order withdrawal with permission to institute a fresh suit on the ground that the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect or that there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit. Evidently the petitioners' suit failed not because of any formal defect. There also did not appear any sufficient grounds to entitle the petitioner to ask for withdrawal of a suit. Besides, he never asked for withdrawal either before the trial Court or the First Appellate Court. The High Court, it was held, rightly refused to allow withdrawal of the suit or to lead additional evidence in these circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioners had filed three different suits having common questions of fact and law involved in them and they were disposed of by the trial Court under one judgment. The present petitions arise out of certain orders passed in Second Appeal. The petitioners claimed title to the property in dispute on the basis of prescription and they accord ing filed a suit for a declaration that the mutation in favour of the contesting defendants was illegal. The petitioners' application for a certificate to file Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. The learned Single Judge refused to permit the petitioners either to withdraw the suit or to lead additional evidence. Mr. Pervaiz Akhtar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has frankly stated that he does not dispute the findings of the Courts below on the question of adverse possession. It is, therefore, evident that the only ground on which the petitioners filed the suit failed. Mr. Pervaiz Akhtar has, however, contended that the petitioners should have been permitted to put in additional evidence and that their application for that purpose was illegally rejected by the First Appellate Court. He has argued that although this point was raised before the High Court, it was not considered by it. On reference to the judgment of the First Appellate Court we do not find any reference to the petitioners' application for withdrawal of the suit or to lead additional evidence. Under Order XLI, rule 27 the parties to an appeal are debarred from producing additional evidence in the appellate Court unless the Court on whose decree the appeal has been preferred has refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted, or unless the appellate Court requires any document to be produced to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause. The petitioner never asked for putting any additional evidence before the trial Court or even; before the First Appellate Court. There is also no substance in the next contention of Mr. Pervaiz Akhtar that the learned Single Judge of the High Court illegally refused to permit the petitioners to withdraw their suit. Under Order XXIII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court can order withdrawal with permission to institute a fresh suit on the ground that the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect or that there are other sufficient grounds for allow ing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit. Evidently the petitioners' suit failed not because of any formal defect. There also do not appear any sufficient grounds to entitle the petitioner to ask for withdrawal of a suit. Besides, as we have noticed already, he never asked for withdrawal either before the trial Court or the First Appellate Court. There is no substance in these petitions and all the three petitions are accordingly dismissed. Leave refused,