2001 PLP 153 (CLC)
ALI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 153 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, J |
| Parties | ALI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 153 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 153 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 153 (CLC) (ALI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzoor‑ul‑Haq for Petitioners.
- Shahid Hussain Qadri for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th May, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 42‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XIII, R.2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Suit for declaration‑‑ Production of additional evidence‑‑‑Case remained pending for full nineteen years and parties adduced their evidence which was closed but application for production of additional evidence was filed, by plaintiffs when case was fixed for final arguments which was dismissed by Trial Court as well as by revisional Court‑‑‑Application for production of additional evidence was rightly dismissed concurrently by Courts below‑‑‑Plaintiff having failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in orders of Courts below, same could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. Muhammad Khan and 6 others v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 12 others 1991 SCMR970 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Khan and 6 others v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 12 others 1991 SCMR970 rel. Manzoor‑ul‑Haq for Petitioners. Shahid Hussain Qadri for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th May, 2000. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application before the learned Civil Judge I‑Class, Sheikhupura for seeking permission for production of additional evidence. This application was dismissed vide order, dated 7‑10‑1999. The revision petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. also met with the same fate and was dismissed vide judgment, dated 2‑2‑2000. Hence this writ petition.
2. The suit for declaration was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in the year 1981 and the application for production of additional evidence was filed when the case was fixed for final arguments. The case remained pending for full 19 years and the parties adduced their evidence which was closed and at the stage when the case was fixed for arguments, in order to further delay the matter, this application was filed. Both the Courts below were justified in refusing this application.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the orders of Courts below and the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below is just and correct. Otherwise too the rule laid down in Muhammad Khan and 6 others v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 12 others 1991 SCMR 970, this writ petition is not maintainable.
4. For the reasons abovementioned, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. H.B.T./A‑69/L Petition dismissed.