2009 PLP 1449 (YLR)
CHAMAN ASLAM — Applicant Versus MUHAMMAD AURANGZEB and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1449 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Azizullah M. Memon, J |
| Parties | CHAMAN ASLAM — Applicant Versus MUHAMMAD AURANGZEB and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1449 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1449 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Azizullah M. Memon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1449 (YLR) (CHAMAN ASLAM — Applicant Versus MUHAMMAD AURANGZEB and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saeed Ahmed for Respondents No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
Mrs. Razia Danish for Applicant. Ghulam Haider for the State.
Judgment & Decree
AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, J.--Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The complainant/applicant filed complaint under section 3(1)(2) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, for recovery of possession of the flat, described in the said application. The Court of learned District and Sessions Judge recorded the evidence, but at a later stage complainant/applicant moved an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. with a prayer that she may be permitted to produce further evidence (in support of her said application), which was heard by learned IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi, East, who dismissed the same vide Order, dated 17th July, 2007. It is 3 settled principle of law that wherever a party desires to produce further/additional evidence, in support of its case, then such an application shall mention very strong reasons for not having produced the same when the proper opportunity was afforded to such a party, and further that the full details of such further/additional evidence are to be mentioned in such an. application. In case, such essential requirements are not fulfilled the party shall not be entitled to produce further/additional evidence in support of its case. But, learned counsel for the complainant/applicant has argued that some documents, already available on the file of learned trial Court, could not be produced by the complainant in her evidence for the reason that she was suffering from cancer, and faced very dire circumstances, therefore, complainant needs to be afforded one opportunity to produce the document which, as already available on the file of the learned trial Court. Under the circumstances, though the impugned order passed by the trial Court appears to be sound as well as legal, but the complainant needs to be afforded with one opportunity to further pursue her case according to law. This criminal revision application is hereby dismissed in limine, leaving the complainant at liberty to file a fresh application before the learned trial Court with a prayer to allow her to produce the documents in evidence, which may already have been placed by her in the case in question; if filed, such an application shall be heard and decided on its own merit. The revision application stands disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./C-12/K Order accordingly.