2010 GBLR 424 (PLP)
ZAFAR IQBAL MD NACTO, GILGIT-BALTISTAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NASEEM — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 GBLR 424 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J. and Syed Jaffar Shah, J |
| Parties | ZAFAR IQBAL MD NACTO, GILGIT-BALTISTAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NASEEM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), (b) Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 GBLR 424 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), (b) Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 GBLR 424 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J. and Syed Jaffar Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 GBLR 424 (PLP) (ZAFAR IQBAL MD NACTO, GILGIT-BALTISTAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NASEEM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Javed Iqbal Advocate for the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 85, 90 & 91
Official document not produced at proper stage in evidence
Effect
Official document which was not produced at proper stage in evidence from official custody in proper manner, could not be considered as part of evidence and judicial record.
Art. 65
Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan Rules, 2008, O.XXXI
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.114 & O.XLVII, R.1
New ground could not be allowed to be taken in review petition on the basis of fact which was not brought before the court at proper stage.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, C.J.
The petitioner seeks review of the Judgment dated 8-6-2010 rendered in a civil appeal arising out of a civil suit, in which decree passed by the Court of first instance was reversed by the first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 14-4-2008 and judgment of appellate Court was maintained by Chief Court in second appeal vide Judgment dated 28-9-2009. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court without taking into consideration the material evidence available on record, restored the decree of trial Court, which was not otherwise sustainable in law. He submitted that letter dated 4-1-2008, issued by the Controller of Examination University of Peshawar by virtue of which the letter dated 24-8-2004, of the University of Peshawar declaring the B.A. degree of respondent as genuine on the basis of which decree was passed was cancelled and this important fact has been ignored by the Court, while deciding the main appeal the learned counsel submitted that letter dated 4-1-2008 was produced in appeal before the Chief Court which was treated as part of the record and if the same would have been taken into consideration, the result of the appeal would definitely be different. The contention has no substances. The letter dated 4-1-2008, was not brought in evidence from official custody in proper manner at any stage rather for the first time an attempt was made by the petitioner to make it part of record of appeal before the Chief Court, therefore the same could not be read in evidence and also there was no mention of it in the judgment of the Chief Court. The law is that an official document which is not produced at proper stage in evidence from official custody in proper manner cannot be considered as part of evidence and Judicial record. The official letter under discussion was produced by the petitioner in appeal before the Chief Court and without examination of the controller of examination and providing opportunity of cross-examination of respondent, it was not possible for the Court to give effect to the letter in question which had otherwise no evidently value. Be that as it may, the petitioner for the first time relying upon the letter in question in this review petition has sought review of the judgment, whereas the law is that a new ground cannot be allowed to be taken in review petition on the basis of fact which was not brought before the Court at proper stage. The learned counsel has not argued any other point. This review petition being without any substance is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./20/Glt Petition dismissed.