1981 PLP 1341 (CLC)
MAHMOODAH YUSUF NIZAMI AND 6 OTHERS‑‑‑Plaintiffs Versus S. HOODA AND ANOTHER‑Defendants
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1341 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Nasir Aslam Zahid, J |
| Parties | MAHMOODAH YUSUF NIZAMI AND 6 OTHERS‑‑‑Plaintiffs Versus S. HOODA AND ANOTHER‑Defendants |
| Primary Law | (a) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑, (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ‑, (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1341 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑, (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ‑, (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1341 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Nasir Aslam Zahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1341 (CLC) (MAHMOODAH YUSUF NIZAMI AND 6 OTHERS‑‑‑Plaintiffs Versus S. HOODA AND ANOTHER‑Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing : 8th December, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Ss. 137 & 138 ‑‑Cross‑examination‑ ‑‑‑ Omission ‑ Inference ‑Plaintiff neither cross‑examined regarding his version of accident nor version of defendants put to him‑‑Defendants' witnesses cross-examined regarding details of accident and case of plaintiff also put to them‑Veracity of himself as regards details of accident, held, not challenged ‑Cross‑examination of defendants witnesses about factual details of accident and putting plaintiff s case to them, held further, additional factor to conclude plaintiff's version of accident being correct. [Cross‑examination‑‑Inference]. ‑‑ S.
114. Illus. (g)‑Document‑‑‑Non-production‑Inference‑ Defendants in their written statements and cross‑examination of plaintiff relying upon F. I. R. and report of Motor Vehicle Inspector about accident‑Further, defendants relying upon Police report by including it in list of "documents relied upon" aid mentioning both documents specifically in their affidavit of documents but not producing them‑Held conclusion can fairly be drawn that had these documents been produced, they would have gone against version given by defendants.‑[Document‑Inference]. ‑‑‑ Ss 6 & 9‑‑Damages, suit for‑‑Relevancy of Police challan
‑Police not challaning defendant for accident‑Question whether defen dant challaned or not in criminal Court, held, not relevant under S. 6 & 9, Evidence Act, 1872 and has no bearing its civil suit claiming damages.‑[Damages]. Iqbal Kazi for Plaintiffs. S. H. Kazmi for Defendants.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ Ss. 137 & 138 ‑‑Cross‑examination‑ ‑‑‑ Omission ‑ Inference ‑Plaintiff neither cross‑examined regarding his version of accident nor version of defendants put to him‑‑Defendants' witnesses cross-examined regarding details of accident and case of plaintiff also put to them‑Veracity of himself as regards details of accident, held, not challenged ‑Cross‑examination of defendants witnesses about factual details of accident and putting plaintiff s case to them, held further, additional factor to conclude plaintiff's version of accident being correct. [Cross‑examination‑‑Inference]. (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ‑
‑‑ S.
114. Illus. (g)‑Document‑‑‑Non-production‑Inference‑ Defendants in their written statements and cross‑examination of plaintiff relying upon F. I. R. and report of Motor Vehicle Inspector about accident‑Further, defendants relying upon Police report by including it in list of "documents relied upon" aid mentioning both documents specifically in their affidavit of documents but not producing them‑Held conclusion can fairly be drawn that had these documents been produced, they would have gone against version given by defendants.‑[Document‑Inference]. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑
‑‑‑ Ss 6 & 9‑‑Damages, suit for‑‑Relevancy of Police challan
‑Police not challaning defendant for accident‑Question whether defen dant challaned or not in criminal Court, held, not relevant under S. 6 & 9, Evidence Act, 1872 and has no bearing its civil suit claiming damages.‑[Damages]. Iqbal Kazi for Plaintiffs. S. H. Kazmi for Defendants. Date of hearing : 8th December, 1980.