1985 PLP 2654 (CLC)
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus Haji MUHAMMAD ZAKARIA — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 2654 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus Haji MUHAMMAD ZAKARIA — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 2654 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 2654 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 2654 (CLC) (KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus Haji MUHAMMAD ZAKARIA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Raheem for Petitioners.
- Mian Allah Nawaz for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th June, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
O.Xlll, r. 2 & S. 115--Document--Non-production at early stage--Permission granted by trial Court at late stage--No good cause shown--Held, decision of trial Court was arbitrary without considering real and most important question of good cause for non-production at early stage.
Judgment & Decree
On 29-3-1978 Haji Muhammad Zakaria filed suit for possession by pre-emption against Khushi Muhammad and others, the petitioners. The suit was resisted, final arguments were heard but before the trial Court could announce judgment, the respondent moved application under Order XIII, rule 2, C.P.C., for permission to produce Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1967 to Rabi 1979. The trial Court allowed application on 26-4-1980 on the grounds that applicant had already produced copies of mutation to prove his ownership in Mauza and that Khasra Girdawari was being sought to be produced in evidence only to relent the defendant's contention that the title of the plaintiff was not valid and that the document was necessary for the just decision of the rights of the parties, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter was not considered in its true perspective inasmuch as no good cause was shown for the non-production of document at an early stage. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the trial Court.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the suit was filed on 29-3-1978 and application for permission to produce Khasra Girdawari at subsequent stage was moved on 9-4-1980 and that the learned trial Court did not consider the real question i.e. showing of good cause for the non-production of documents. The facts that the Khasra Girdawari was a public document and its authenticity was beyond any doubt or that~Athe document was necessary for the just decision of the case do not show that there was good cause for non-production thereof. To my mind, the trial Court has without considering the real and most important question i.e. good-cause for non-production of documents at early stage, had arbitrarily allowed application. Even before me the learned counsel has failed to show good cause for the non-production of document at early stage.
4. For what has been stated above, the revision is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. H.B.T?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.