1985 PLP 304 (MLD)
Mst. KANIZ FATIMA and another — Petitioner's Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 304 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | Mst. KANIZ FATIMA and another — Petitioner's Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Provisional Constitution Order (1 oaf 1981) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 304 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Provisional Constitution Order (1 oaf 1981) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 304 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 304 (MLD) (Mst. KANIZ FATIMA and another — Petitioner's Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hasnat Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 9--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 and
0. XIII, r.2--Refusa! to grant permission for production of witness by way of additional evidence, held, did not amount to a case decided within meaning of S. 115, C.P.C.--Order of revisional Court dismissing revision petition on ground of its non-maintainability, upheld in circumstances.-- [Revision]. Habibullah Khan v Pak Cement Industries Ltd. and others 1969 S C M R 965 ref.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner's application for production of witness by way of additional evidence was turned down, by the learned trial Court by its order, dated 10-3-1985. They challenged this order through a revision, which was disallowed by the learned Additional District Judge, on the ground that the refusal to grant permission for production of additions .evidence did not amount to a case decided within the meaning of section 115, C.P.C. The order; dated 19-3-1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in this behalf is sought to be removed through judicial` review on the plea that the view taken by him is erroneous and the revision should have been decided on merits.
2. There is no merit in this contention. A reference to Habibullah Khan v. Pak Cement Industries Ltd. and others 1969 S C M R 965, will provide that an order admitting or declining to admit evidence oral or documentary is not a case decided so as to attract the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. The view taken by the learned Additional District Judge is, thus, not open to any exception. Dismissed in limine. H. A. K.