1991 PLP 1362 (SCMR)
Malik ZAFAR ALI — Petitioner Versus Malik KHALID AZIZ and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1362 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and |
| Parties | Malik ZAFAR ALI — Petitioner Versus Malik KHALID AZIZ and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1362 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1362 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1362 (SCMR) (Malik ZAFAR ALI — Petitioner Versus Malik KHALID AZIZ and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th September, 1989.
- Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7-6-1989, passed in Writ Petition No. 1037 of 1989).
Arts.85, 87 & 89
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Public documents
Public documents produced in q reliance of evidence should be deemed to be genuine unless proved otherwise-- Plan duly sanctioned by Municipal Committee being a public document, there was no bar in case mode of proof of such document was dispensed with.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7‑6‑1989, passed in Writ Petition No. 1037 of 1989). ‑‑‑‑Arts.85, 87 & 89‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Public documents‑‑‑Proof of‑‑‑Public documents produced in q reliance of evidence should be deemed to be genuine unless proved otherwise‑‑ Plan duly sanctioned by Municipal Committee being a public document, there was no bar in case mode of proof of such document was dispensed with. Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th September, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 7‑6‑1989, passed in Writ Petition No.1037 of 1989. The respondents on the basis of re‑construction asked the ejectment of the petitioner. He had' produced the original plan already sanctioned‑by the Municipal Committee. The Counsel for the petitioner wants that this document relied upon has not been proved and the learned Courts have wrongly dispensed with the mode of proving this document. We agree with the learned Courts below that a public document produced in reliance of the evidence shall be deemed to be genuine unless proved contrary to it. The plan duly sanctioned by the Municipal Committee is a public document, thus we feel no bar in a case the mode of proof of such a document is dispensed with. Hence no case is made out for the grant of leave to appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./Z‑82/S Petition dismissed.