1981 PLP 1083 (CLC)
Before Zaffar Hussain Mirza, J Versus Mst. FATIMA BAI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1083 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Zaffar Hussain Mirza, J |
| Parties | Before Zaffar Hussain Mirza, J Versus Mst. FATIMA BAI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) West Pakistan Urban Rest Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑, (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑, (e) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1083 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) West Pakistan Urban Rest Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑, (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑, (e) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑, (d) Natural Justice, principles of‑, (b) West Pakistan Urban Feat Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1083 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Zaffar Hussain Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1083 (CLC) (Before Zaffar Hussain Mirza, J Versus Mst. FATIMA BAI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zaheer Hassan for Appellant.
- A. Aziz Khan for Respondent,
- Date of hearing : 22nd January, 1981,.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ S. 15, Explanation read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100‑Concurrent findings of fact‑‑Rent Controller presuming under S. 114, Evidence Act (I of 1872) service of notice under S. 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (XXVIII of 1958) having teen effected‑Additional District Judge without examining reasons given by Rent Controller disposing of ques tion by holding appellant's denial of service of notice as bogus pies and not affirming finding of Rent Controller by any independent appraisal of evidence but concluding on his own comparison of signatures‑He/d, no concurrent finding of fact by two Courts below existed in circumstances.‑[Findings of fact]. Gulzar Began v. Sairah Bibi 1972 S. C M R 251 rel. Abdul Majid v. Khalit Ahmed P h D 1955 F C 38 ref. ‑‑ S. 15-Appeal‑Conclusion of fact'‑Respondent's evidence not suggesting disputed signature to be that of appellant‑Respondent only producing acknowledgement receipt but not stating same to be bearing appellant's signature‑Appellant positively denying signa ture‑Additional District Judge deciding receipt of notice on basis of his own comparison of signatures‑Such mode of reaching con clusion on question of fact, held, not safe.‑[Question of fact]. S. M. Zahir v. Fazal Ali 1974 S C M R 490 distinguished. Kessarbai v. Jethabhai Jivan A I R 1928 P C 277 fol. ‑‑ S. 73‑Comparison of signatures‑Many 'documents on record containing admitted signatures of appellant‑Additional District Judge comparing disputed signature with only ore admitted document‑Held, inference drawn by Additional District Judge; purely subjective and totally lacking reasons for his conclusion. ‑‑Maxim: Audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned unheard)‑No party moving Court for comparison of signatures‑Ad ditional District Judge comparing signatures in absence of parties Comparison of signatures in circumstances; held, against natural justice and comparison of signatures after notice to parties more consonant with requirements of justice.‑[Maxim]. ‑‑ S. 67‑Objection to admissibility of document‑Landlady (appellant) only producing acknowledgement receipt but not asserting tenant (appellant) having signed notice‑Service of notice it self fact in issue‑Held, absence of objection to reception of document in evidence will not constitute estoppel against appellant as to mode of proof‑Held further, raising ‑issue of non‑service of notice amounts to objection of, not signing document.‑[Document]. Mohammad Yousuf v. S. M. Ayub P L D 1972 Pesh. 1975 'and Abdullah v. Abdul Karim P L D 1968 S C 140 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
S. M. Zahir v. Fazal Ali 1974 S C M R 490 distinguished. Kessarbai v. Jethabhai Jivan A I R 1928 P C 277 fol. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑
‑‑ S. 73‑Comparison of signatures‑Many 'documents on record containing admitted signatures of appellant‑Additional District Judge comparing disputed signature with only ore admitted document‑Held, inference drawn by Additional District Judge; purely subjective and totally lacking reasons for his conclusion. (d) Natural Justice, principles of‑
‑‑Maxim: Audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned unheard)‑No party moving Court for comparison of signatures‑Ad ditional District Judge comparing signatures in absence of parties Comparison of signatures in circumstances; held, against natural justice and comparison of signatures after notice to parties more consonant with requirements of justice.‑[Maxim]. (e) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑
‑‑ S. 67‑Objection to admissibility of document‑Landlady (appellant) only producing acknowledgement receipt but not asserting tenant (appellant) having signed notice‑Service of notice it self fact in issue‑Held, absence of objection to reception of document in evidence will not constitute estoppel against appellant as to mode of proof‑Held further, raising ‑issue of non‑service of notice amounts to objection of, not signing document.‑[Document]. Mohammad Yousuf v. S. M. Ayub P L D 1972 Pesh. 1975 'and Abdullah v. Abdul Karim P L D 1968 S C 140 distinguished. Zaheer Hassan for Appellant. A. Aziz Khan for Respondent, Date of hearing : 22nd January, 1981,.