1991 PLP 771 (SCMR)
ZABITA KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus GANDERI GUL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 771 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and |
| Parties | ZABITA KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus GANDERI GUL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 771 (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 771 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 771 (SCMR) (ZABITA KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus GANDERI GUL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st February, 1990.
- A Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 24-6-1989 in C.R. No. 38 of 1987).
Art. 70
Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted to consider questions whether oral evidence could or was sufficiently satisfactory to displace documentary evidence produced by parties in the case; whether in holding that petitioners were not sons of S, because they were not so shown in pedigree-table Court should have examined other evidence as regards their parentage.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 70‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider questions whether oral evidence could or was sufficiently satisfactory to displace documentary evidence produced by parties in the case; whether in holding that petitioners were not sons of S, because they were not so shown in pedigree‑table Court should have examined other evidence as regards their parentage. A Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st February, 1990. RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑We have heard the arguments of the I learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record. Leave is hereby granted to consider the following questions: (i) Whether oral evidence could or was sufficiently satisfactory to displace the documentary evidence (such as the pedigree‑table etc.) produced by the parties in the case; and (ii) Whether in holding that Muhammad Karim and Fazal Karim petitioners I Nos.2 and 3 were not the sons of Sher Hassan, because they were not so shown in the pedigree‑table, the Court should have examined other evidence as regards their parentage. The petitioners shall furnish security in the sum of Rs.2,
000. The appeal shall be heard on the present record. The parties are at liberty to file such further documents as they consider fit and proper for the full and final disposal of the appeal. The office shall send for the original trial Court's rile so that the same is present when the appeal comes up for hearing. H.B.T./Z‑98/5 Leave granted.