1991 PLP 257 (SCMR)
Mst. SHARMAN BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus MAHBOOB ALI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 257 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SHARMAN BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus MAHBOOB ALI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872), (a) Evidence Act (I of 1872) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 257 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872), (a) Evidence Act (I of 1872) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 257 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 257 (SCMR) (Mst. SHARMAN BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus MAHBOOB ALI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants.
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 27th May, 1990.
- Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 20-2-1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in RSA No. 17 of 1973).
S.78(6)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal was granted to consider contention of appellants that objection with regard to pedigree-table was not only with regard to the mode of proof of document but to its admissibility in evidence.
S.78(6)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Tendering of pedigree table in evidence Objection had been raised by appellants, with regard to tendering of such evidence--Finding of High Court that no objection was taken at the time of tendering of document was incorrect and against record--Case was remanded to High Court for decision afresh.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑This order will dispose of the appeals as common questions of facts and law are involved in them. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention of the appellants that the objection with regard to Ex.P.3 was not only with regard to the mode of proof of the document but to its admissibility in evidence. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents‑plaintiffs filed separate suits for possession in the Court of Civil !fudge, Wazirabad in respect of land in dispute. The trial Court decreed both the suits in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The appeals filed before the learned District Judge, Gujranwala, were accepted on the ground that the pedigree‑table Ex.P/3 was not admissible in evidence as required under section 78 subsection (6) of the Evidence Act. The respondents went in appeals before the High Court. The learned High Court accepted both the appeals and remanded the case to the District Judge for deciding the appeals afresh after re‑evaluating the entire evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to Para 7 of the judgment of the High Court wherein it has been observed that: "I am inclined to hold that objection as to the mode of proof of Ex.P/3 not having been taken before the Trial Court, must be deemed to have been waived. The learned District Judge was wrong in excluding it from consideration on the ground that it had not been formally proved in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) of Section 78 of the Act." We have examined the record and from the perusal of the record it is clear that an objection had been taken by the appellants at the time of tendering pedigree‑table (Ex.P.3) in evidence. Therefore, the finding of the learned High Court that no objection was taken is incorrect and is against the record. We, therefore, accept these appeals, set aside the orders of the High Court and remand the case to it to decide the appeals afresh. There will be no order as to costs. AA./S‑575/S Case remanded.