1991 PLP 1981 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and 12 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1981 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Ali Hussain Qazilbash |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and 12 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1981 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1981 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Ali Hussain Qazilbash.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1981 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and 12 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and M.K.N. Kohli, Advocate-on -Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1991.
- Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and M.K.N. Kohli, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of High Court of Balochistan, Quetta dated 8-1-1990 passed in R.FA. No. 47 of 1988).
S. 107(2)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Application for production of additional evidence viz.; documents filed in High Court in support of one of the grounds taken in appeal
High Court neither taking into consideration documents in question, nor disposing of application for production of additional evidence, nor referring to those documents with a view to deal with their relevance and efficacy on the question before it
Respondent having appeared in response to notice did not object to the conversion of petition into appeal and remand of same to the High Court in view of non-consideration/non- disposal of application for additional evidence
Petition for leave to appeal was thus converted into appeal, judgment of High Court was set aside and case was remanded to High Court for disposal after dealing with the application for additional evidence. Respondent No. 1 in person.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The grievance of the petitioners in this case was that alongwith the appeal filed in the High Court, they had filed an application under section 107(2), C.P.C. and another application disclosing the particulars of the documents which they wanted to produce by way of additional evidence in support of ground (E) taken in appeal before the High Court. Notices on those applications for bringing on record the additional evidence had issued. At the hearing of the argument there was no opposition to the admission of these documents relating to the title of the petitioners in the property. Nevertheless, the High Court did not either take into consideration these documents, nor did it dispose of the applications, nor did it refer to those documents with a view to deal with their relevance and efficacy on the question before the High Court with regard to the title in the disputed property.
2. When the petition came up for hearing on an earlier date and this grievance was reiterated, we issued notice to the respondents "as to why this petition be not converted into appeal and case remanded to the High Court in view of non ‑consideration/non‑disposal of the application for additional evidence", for disposing of the question of additional evidence and thereafter dealing with the appeal. In response to the notice, respondent No.1 has appeared in person and does not object to the suggested course being followed.
3. We find that the statements of facts made by the learned counsel for the petitioners find support from the record. In the circumstances, this petition is converted into appeal, accepted, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for disposal afresh after dealing with the applications for additional evidence. AA./M‑1520/S Case remanded.