1968 SCMR 274 (PLP)
Haji MUHAMMAD AMIN MIAH Petitioner Versus JAMIR AHMED AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 274 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | Haji MUHAMMAD AMIN MIAH Petitioner Versus JAMIR AHMED AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 274 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 274 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Fazle Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 274 (PLP) (Haji MUHAMMAD AMIN MIAH Petitioner Versus JAMIR AHMED AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- D. C. Bhattacharjee, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Mahbubuddin Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdur Rab II, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 3 1st May 1967, in Appeal from Appellate Order No. 81 of 1965). Civil Procectire Code of 1908), O. XLI, r. 23-Remand of case by appellate Court-Appellate Court remitting suit to trial Court holding that defendants "greatly prejudiced due to admission of inadmissible evidence"-Rem2nd order, held, not illegal. [p. 275jA
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of East Pakistan in a second appeal upholding the order of remand which was passed by the first appellate Court for fresh trial of the suit. A suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Dacca. On oppeal by the, defendants, the additional District Judge being of the opinion that the defendants "had been greatly prejudiced due to admission of inadmissible evidence" set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remitted the suit to that Court for disposal in accordance with law. The Court also gave direction that: "The defendants must be allowed an opportunity to examine Exh. A by a handwriting expert and then the learned Subordinate Judge will decide the case on merit after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence." During pendency of the, second appeal a hand writing expert was examined by the Subordinate Judge under the direction of the High Court and his opinion was transmitted to the High Court. The learned Judges have observed:- "It now transpires that the course of events subsequent to the order of this Court has caused a good deal of confusion with regard to this case. We are, however, of the opinion that the judgment pronounced by the trial Court cannot be sustained, because, in the first place, it is vitiated by the reception of a number of inadmissible evidence, for instance, a judgment of a suit in which it is difficult to find as to who were the parties and what was the subject-matter of the suit and secondly, it appears that the trial Court has unnecessarily embarked upon express ing an improper.opinion without sufficient material before it." In this view of the matter the learned Judges upheld the judgment and order of the first appellate Court. The learned counsel attempted to argue that the first appellate Court could have disposed of the appeal after excluding the inadmissible evidence. He also submitted that the learne Judges should have taken into consideration the opinion of the handwriting expert who was examined under their direction. In our opinion, the High Court has given cogent reasons forA upholding the remand order of the first appellate Court. In view of the nature of the suit it would be difficult to say that the High Court acted illegally in not adopting the course suggested by the learned counsel. We, therefore, see no ground for interference and dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed.