1969 PLP 965 (SCMR)
Nawabzada Malik HABIBULLAH KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE PAK. CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 965 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | Nawabzada Malik HABIBULLAH KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE PAK. CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 965 (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 1969 PLP 965 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 965 (SCMR) (Nawabzada Malik HABIBULLAH KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE PAK. CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Shafi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 12th October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 13th July 1967, in Civil Revision No. 384 of 1967).
S. 115 & O. XIII, r. 2 Party permitted by Court to place on record certain documents after framing of issues‑Such order admitting or declining to admit evidence oral or documentary not "case decided" so as to attract provisions of S. 115.
Judgment & Decree
S. 115 & O. XIII, r. 2 Party permitted by Court to place on record certain documents after framing of issues‑Such order admitting or declining to admit evidence oral or documentary not "case decided" so as to attract provisions of S. 115. Mian Muhammad Shafi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Senior Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 12th October 1967. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑This petition for special leave to appeal is wholly misconceived. A suit filed by the respondents against the petitioner for a permanent injunction is pending in the, Court of a Civil Judge in Lahore. After the issues were framed the respondents were permitted by the trial Judge to place on the record certain documents against which the petitioner moved the High Court under section 115, C. P. C. The petition was dismissed as the High Court did not find any material irregularity or illegality in admitting the documents in evidence. It is from this order that the petitioner seeks leave to appeal. An order admitting or declining to admit evidence oral or documentary does not amount to a "case decided" within the purview of section 115, C. P. C. The High Court could not, therefore, interfere with the order of the `trial Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. A fortiorari no appeal from the order of the High Court would lie to this Court. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.