2006 PLP 3120 (YLR)
Mst. SAIRA SHAUKAT through Special Attorney — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ISALAMABAD and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 3120 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | Mst. SAIRA SHAUKAT through Special Attorney — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ISALAMABAD and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 3120 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 3120 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 3120 (YLR) (Mst. SAIRA SHAUKAT through Special Attorney — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ISALAMABAD and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Application to obtain service record of petitioner to be produced in a foreign Court---Some litigation was going on between petitioner and her husband abroad---Mother of husband of petitioner filed application before District Judge, in his capacity as Director, Human Rights, in which it was prayed that service record of petitioner in a private school be made available to be produced in a Court abroad which application was allowed---Validity---No proceedings were pending before District Judge to which either petitioner or mother of husband of petitioner/respondent, was a party---No provision of law existed under which, Director, Human Rights could pass an order directing a third party to produce evidence and hand over same to a person who was not party to any legal proceedings against any other person---Counsel for respondent was not in a position to state any legal provision warranting impugned order---Impugned order passed by District Judge was declared to be without lawful authority and was set aside.
- Syed M. Tayyab for Petitioner.
- S.M. Ayub Bukhari for Respondent No.2.
- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned District Judge, Islamabad in the said capacity has no jurisdiction to procure evidence for a party in appending litigation. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has tried to support the impugned order.
- 3. Admittedly, no proceedings were pending before the learned District Judge, Islamabad to which either the petitioner or respondent No.2 is a party. I have not been able to locate any provision of law under which the Director, Human Rights can pass an order directing a 3rd party to produce evidence and hand over the same to a person who is not a party to any legal proceedings against any other person. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, of course, is not in a position to state any legal provision warranting the impugned order.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--Some litigation is going on between the petitioner and her husband in a Court in U.K. An application was filed before the learned District Judge, Islamabad in his capacity as Director, Human Rights, by respondent No.2, mother of said husband of the lady. It was prayed that the service record of the petitioner in a private school in Islamabad be made available to be produced in the said Court. The application has been allowed on 2-10-2003.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned District Judge, Islamabad in the said capacity has no jurisdiction to procure evidence for a party in appending litigation. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has tried to support the impugned order.
3. Admittedly, no proceedings were pending before the learned District Judge, Islamabad to which either the petitioner or respondent No.2 is a party. I have not been able to locate any provision of law under which the Director, Human Rights can pass an order directing a 3rd party to produce evidence and hand over the same to a person who is not a party to any legal proceedings against any other person. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, of course, is not in a position to state any legal provision warranting the impugned order.
4. Writ petition accordingly is allowed and the impugned order dated 2-10-2003 of the learned District Judge, Islamabad/respondent No.1 is declared to be without lawful authority and is set aside. H.B.T.IS-73/L Petition allowed.