1993 PLP 450 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus Mst. NASRIN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 450 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Azad J & K |
| Bench Members | khawaja Muhammad Saeed, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus Mst. NASRIN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 450 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 450 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Azad J & K bench comprising: khawaja Muhammad Saeed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 450 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus Mst. NASRIN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ashfaq Kiani for Petitioner.
- Ghulam Mustafa Mughal for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XLI, R.27‑‑‑Additional evidence‑‑‑Production of‑‑‑Essentials‑‑‑First Appellate Court could take additional evidence only if evidence already on record after examining was found to be inherently defective or insufficient and unless additional evidence was allowed, Court could not pronounce judgment‑‑‑First Appellate Court, however, did not feel inclined to record additional evidence for resolving of controversial issues between the parties‑‑ High Court thus, could not direct First Appellate Court to record any evidence on behalf of any of the parties for filling up the lacunae in the case‑‑ Document in question, as per stand of the petitioner, was executed between him. and respondent and same was with him but he made no attempt to produce the same before Trial Court‑‑‑Additional evidence could not be recorded to supplement the evidence of parties or to make up the weaknesses of one's case‑‑‑Negligent party has to suffer for its omissions and negligence. Saifee v. Lal Din PLD 1986 Azad J & K 148 and Muhammad Rashid v. Muhammad Arif and others PLD 1986 Azad J & K 128 ref. 1992 CLC 187 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Question whether plaintiff should have been allowed time to produce evidence in rebuttal by Trial Court or whether sufficient time was not allowed to him to produce evidence in support of his pleading were matters which were to be decided by the First Appellate Court, for such points had been specifically agitated in the memorandum of appeal which had been filed before First Appellate Court and which were yet to be adjudicated‑‑‑High Court, could not adjudicate upon the matter upon which First Appellate Court t had not given any finding‑‑‑Plaintiff would be at liberty to raise such questions before First Appellate Court, if so advised.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XLI, R.27‑‑‑Additional evidence‑‑‑Production of‑‑‑Essentials‑‑‑First Appellate Court could take additional evidence only if evidence already on record after examining was found to be inherently defective or insufficient and unless additional evidence was allowed, Court could not pronounce judgment‑‑‑First Appellate Court, however, did not feel inclined to record additional evidence for resolving of controversial issues between the parties‑‑ High Court thus, could not direct First Appellate Court to record any evidence on behalf of any of the parties for filling up the lacunae in the case‑‑ Document in question, as per stand of the petitioner, was executed between him. and respondent and same was with him but he made no attempt to produce the same before Trial Court‑‑‑Additional evidence could not be recorded to supplement the evidence of parties or to make up the weaknesses of one's case‑‑‑Negligent party has to suffer for its omissions and negligence. Saifee v. Lal Din PLD 1986 Azad J & K 148 and Muhammad Rashid v. Muhammad Arif and others PLD 1986 Azad J & K 128 ref. 1992 CLC 187 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Question whether plaintiff should have been allowed time to produce evidence in rebuttal by Trial Court or whether sufficient time was not allowed to him to produce evidence in support of his pleading were matters which were to be decided by the First Appellate Court, for such points had been specifically agitated in the memorandum of appeal which had been filed before First Appellate Court and which were yet to be adjudicated‑‑‑High Court, could not adjudicate upon the matter upon which First Appellate Court t had not given any finding‑‑‑Plaintiff would be at liberty to raise such questions before First Appellate Court, if so advised. Muhammad Ashfaq Kiani for Petitioner. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal for Respondents.