1992 PLP 1627 (CLC)
PIRACHA MULTIPURPOSE CORPORATION‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and another‑‑‑Defendants
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1627 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Syed Abdul Rahman, J |
| Parties | PIRACHA MULTIPURPOSE CORPORATION‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and another‑‑‑Defendants |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1627 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1627 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Syed Abdul Rahman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1627 (CLC) (PIRACHA MULTIPURPOSE CORPORATION‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and another‑‑‑Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 27th September, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑OXIII, R. 2‑‑‑Production of documents‑‑‑Genuineness and authenticity of such documents was not doubted‑‑‑Delay in producing same was sought to be condoned‑‑‑Plausible explanation had been given for delay‑‑‑Production of documents would not cause any undue inconvenience or prejudice to defendants‑‑‑Plaintiff was allowed to produce documents in question. Shamshul Arfin for Plaintiff. S.M. Noorul Hasan and S.H. Fani for the Defendants.
Judgment & Decree
Shamshul Arfin for Plaintiff. S.M. Noorul Hasan and S.H. Fani for the Defendants. Date of hearing: 27th September, 1987. By this application under Order 16, Rule 1(2) read with Order 13, Rule 2 and section 151, C.P.C., the plaintiff has prayed to this Court to allow him to produce certain documents which he had attempted to produce before the Commissioner but the same request was turned down. Thereupon he made an application for review of the order but it was also turned down by the Commissioner on the ground that no such powers for reviewing the order were available to him. Mr. Shamshul Arfin who has appeared for plaintiff has submitted that on 4‑12‑1986 he had submitted before the Commissioner a list of witnesses he was required to bring with himself for production in the case. The learned Commissioner called upon the parties to admit and deny the documents. The documents now sought to be produced were denied by defendant No..l. Hence these documents arc to be proved after being produced before the Commissioner. According to the plaintiff's counsel the said documents are public documents and official record. Their genuineness and authenticity is not doubted. He has therefore prayed that the delay to produce the same be condoned. The defendants have opposed the admission of these documents on the ground that the same have been filed after a very long delay and that the delay has not been explained. After hearing the counsel for both the parties I am satisfied that a plausible explanation has been given for the delay and the production of the documents will not cause any undue inconvenience or prejudice to the defendants. Their authenticity or genuineness is not denied. Under these circumstances I allow the application. A.A./P‑245/K Application allowed