2001 PLP 1766 (SCMR)
Sh. QAMAR JAVID and others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus Sh. HASSAN ALI ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1766 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh and Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | Sh. QAMAR JAVID and others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus Sh. HASSAN ALI ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1766 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1766 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh and Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1766 (SCMR) (Sh. QAMAR JAVID and others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus Sh. HASSAN ALI ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- M.Q. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment dated 16‑12‑1998 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench through which revision petition filed by respondent against the judgment dated 29‑6‑1978 of the First Appellate Court accepting the appeal of the petitioners and setting aside the judgment dated 28‑2‑1978 of the trial Court has been accepted on acceptance of the application made by respondent under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. for permission to produce additional evidence and the case remanded to the trial Court 'for fresh decision of the suit after recording additional evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners maintained that the two documents which were sought to be produced as additional evidence did not have any bearing upon the point in issue between the parties i.e. identification of the properties purchased by the parties from the Settlement Department and the area underneath them which questions were decided by two Courts below on the basis of evidence led by the parties. He also maintained that merely because appreciation for permission to lead additional evidence had been accepted was no ground to set aside the judgment and decree of First Appellate Court for after production of the said documents on record and allowing the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the same by producing evidence in rebuttal the revision petition should have been decided on merits if at all said additional evidence was found necessary for the decision of the case. He also maintained that application for permission to lead additional evidence was accepted mechanically on the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent/revision petitioner that the same could not be produced as he was not aware of the same without judicial application of mind whether this ground was available to the respondent. We have examined the two documents which were sought to be produced in additional evidence and find that the contents of the same have no bearing on the pleas of the parties regarding identification of the properties and the area underneath about which evidence had already been produced by the parties and the same was thoroughly examined by the trial Court and First Appellate Court, therefore, said additional evidence was not at all relevant for the purpose of disposal of the suit on merits. For the foregoing reasons this petition is converted into appeal and accepted. Judgment dated 16‑12‑1998 passed by Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench is set aside. Application made by revision petitioner for additional evidence is hereby dismissed. The revision petition shall now be decided by the High Court on its own merits in accordance with law on the basis of evidence already led by the parties. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./Q‑9/S Appeal allowed.