1992 CLC 1450 (PLP)
Kh. Muhammad Kaleem ..petitioner Versus Syed Anwer Hussain and other .Respondents
| Citation | 1992 CLC 1450 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum,J |
| Parties | Kh. Muhammad Kaleem ..petitioner Versus Syed Anwer Hussain and other .Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 CLC 1450 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 CLC 1450 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum,J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 CLC 1450 (PLP) (Kh. Muhammad Kaleem ..petitioner Versus Syed Anwer Hussain and other .Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sharif Hussain Bokhary for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Hussain Awan for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.4 and 5
- Date of hearing :2nd June,1991.
Headnotes / Summary
.O.XIII , R.2& O.XVIII, R,2 . Qunun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),Art.78 constitiution of Pakistan(1973), Art. 199 . Inteim order Validity Application of pain plaintiff / respondents for having disputed signature on document compared with admitted signature of defendants / petitioners , was allowed by trial court during pendency of suit when affirmative evidence of plaintiff was closed, but evidence in rebuttal was yet to be recorded order of trail court was upheld by appellate court Main dispute between parties was with regard to disputed signature on affidavit procedure in evidence by defendant Court below, in circumstances, rightly opined that comparison of dispute signature by expert would be helpful in arriving at a just conclusion concurrent orders of court below allowing application of plaintiff/ respondents was just and fair and as such would not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of discretion vested in it under constitution jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Hussain Awan for Respondents Nos.1 to
3. Nemo for Respondents Nos.4 and 5 Date of hearing :2nd June,1991. This constitution petition is directed against an interim order passed by the civil judge, Gujranwala, on 14th of February, 1990 passed during the penency of a suit, filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos1to 3, for possession of a house situate in Gujranwala against the application filed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 for having the dispute signature on documents Exh.D-2 compared with the admitted signature on Exh.D-1.this order was affirmed in revision by the learned Additional District judge, Gujranwala, on 31st of July, 1990.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition has contended that the impugned order are perverse and arbitrary in nature and as the application was filed after the closure of the evidence by respondents, it could not have been allowed by the courts below. The learned counsel relying upon Saeed Ahmed v. Muhammad Anwer 1989 MLD 4119,Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Ilyas and 3 other PLD 1980 Lah.495 and Syed Shabir Hussain was filed by the respondent the application could not have been allowed by the trail court.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that although evidence in affirmative had been closed by respondents Nos.1 to3 but their evidence in rebuttal was yet to be recorded and therefore, the Courts below were justified in allowing the application.
4. The main dispute in the suit between the parties is with regard to the signature on the affidavit (Exh.D-2) produced in evidence by the petitioners. The trial Court has opined that the comparison of signature by the Expert would certainly be helpful in arriving at a just conclusion. The Additional District Judge found no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 that the evidence of the plaintiffs/respondents in rebuttal is yet to be recorded. The comparison of the disputed signature with the admitted signature on Exh.D‑1 of the deceased, Syed Israr Hussain, would be helpful in deciding the suit. In these circumstances, the orders passed by the learned Courts below are just and fair and call for no interference in the exercise of discretion vested in this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑3099/L Petition dismissed.