1987 PLP 2425 (MLD)
Mst. RUKHSANA BEGUM — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI (EAST) and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2425 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, J |
| Parties | Mst. RUKHSANA BEGUM — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI (EAST) and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Qanun-e-Shahadat, Order (10 of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2425 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun-e-Shahadat, Order (10 of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2425 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2425 (MLD) (Mst. RUKHSANA BEGUM — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI (EAST) and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aleem K. Talib for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.164--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Production of cassette as piece of evidence--Admissibility--Constitutional jurisdiction against revisional order of Lower Appellate Court--Jurisdiction--Trial Court allowed to produce in evidence cassette containing conversation between parties as to settlement talk--Appellate Court below taking contrary view, set aside order of Trial Court in revision--No infringement of any provision of law in passing revisional order having been pointed out, such revisional order, held, could not be interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. Hakim Ali Bhatti v. Qazi Abdul Hakim and others 1986 C. L C 1784 and Muhammad Zahir Shah Khan and another v. Nasiruddin and others 1986 C L C 2463 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Hakim Ali Bhatti v. Qazi Abdul Hakim and others 1986 C. L C 1784 and Muhammad Zahir Shah Khan and another v. Nasiruddin and others 1986 C L C 2463 ref. Abdul Aleem K. Talib for Petitioner. This Constitutional Petition is directed against an order dated 26-11-1986 passed by the District Judge Karachi East in Civil Revision Application No.34/86 allowing the respondent's revision and rejecting the present petitioner's application under Section 151, CPC for permission to produce the cassette allegedly containing conversation between the parties as to the settlement talk after filing of the suit No.221/85 which is pending in the Court of IVth Senior Civil Judge Karachi East.
2. I have enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the provision under which the above cassette was admissible as a piece of evidence. His reply was that Section, 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (President's Order No. X of 1984) allows the production of cassette as a piece of evidence being a modern device. Section 164 of the Qunun-e-Shahadat 1984 (President's Order No.X of 1984) reads as follows:- See.
164. Production of evidence that has become available because of modern devices, etc.--In such cases as the Court may consider appropriate, the Court may allow to be produced any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices or techniques." 3. (a) A perusal of the above section indicates that it confers discretion on a Court to allow the production of any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices or techniques. (b) In the instant case the learned Civil Judge has allowed the above application of the petitioner but the learned District Judge in revision took a contrary view on the basis of the two judgments of two learned Single Judges of this Court in the cases of Hakim Ali Bhatti v. Qazi Abdul Hakim and others reported in 1986 C L C 1784 and Muhammad Zahir Shah Khan and another v. Nasiruddin and others, reported in 1986 CLC 2463.
4. Mr. Abdul Aleem K. Talib, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that since the learned trial Court has allowed the production of the cassette, the learned Revisional Court was not justified in reversing the order. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has not been able to point out any infringement of any provision of law by the impugned order. In my view it is not a fit case for a constitutional petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H . B . T . / R-26/ K Writ petition dismissed.