1991 PLP 1823 (SCMR)
KARIM BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus THE DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1823 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | KARIM BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus THE DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1823 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1823 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1823 (SCMR) (KARIM BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus THE DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh Khalilur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th September, 1989.
- Sh Khalilur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 1-6-1987 in Writ Petition No.2402 of 1987).
Art.185(3)
Petitioner after recording evidence of all witnesses produced by him on adjourned date, requested to produce more evidence which according to him was most important to prove his case, but his request was finally turned down
Petitioner contended that Trial Court was bound to give him time to produce further evidence, but he failed to cite any provision of law in support of his contention
If .the witness which petitioner wanted to produce was of such importance same should have been examined in first instance rather than to leave him to last moment
Nothing wrong having been found in impugned order, petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑‑Karim Bakhsh petitioner filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief. The case was fixed for 31‑7‑1986 before the trial Court for recording evidence. It was adjourned to 8‑9‑1986. On the said date evidence of five witnesses, including the three who were present on 31‑7‑1986, was recorded. The petitioner wanted to produce more evidence. He requested for time. His request was turned down by order dated 8‑9‑1986. HC sought review of the said order. The trial Court declined by order dated 20‑5‑1987. Thereafter he filed revision before the District Judge. That too was dismissed. As a last resort he invoked the Constitution jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. The petition was dismissed in limine by order, dated 1‑6‑1987. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court was bound to give time to the petitioner for further evidence, but he failed to cite any provision of law in support of his contention. It was further submitted that the witness the petitioner wanted to examine was the most important to prove his case. If it was so then he should have examined such a witness in the first instant rather than to leave it to the last moment. There is nothing wrong in the impugned order of the Lahore High Court. Dismissed. H.B.T./K‑131/S Petition dismissed.