CLC 1981

1981 PLP 1055 (CLC)

ABDUL KARIM ‑Appellant Versus Mst. KOHL NOOR BEGUM AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Second Appeal No. 160 of 1979, decided on 4th June, 1980.
Honorable Judges
Sajjad Ali Shah, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1981 PLP 1055 (CLC)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Sajjad Ali Shah, J
Parties ABDUL KARIM ‑Appellant Versus Mst. KOHL NOOR BEGUM AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents
Primary Law (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (d) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑‑, (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1055 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (d) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑‑, (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1055 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1055 (CLC) (ABDUL KARIM ‑Appellant Versus Mst. KOHL NOOR BEGUM AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ (d) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑‑ (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑ (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑

Representation

  • Sulleman Kassim for Appellants.
  • Muhammad Sharif for Respondents.
  • Dates of hearing : 20th and 23rd April, 1980.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑ Ss. 100 & 101‑Second appeal‑Concurrent finding of facts given by two Courts below, held, not open to challenge in second appeal even if High Court takes a different view of evidence on record. [Finding of fact]. Mushtaq Ahmed v. Mrs. Mumtaz Zohra Rizvi P L D 1978 Kar. 188 ref. ‑‑ O. XIII, r. 3‑No objection taken when document exhibited --Court, held, not prevented from adjudicating its true nature. [Document]. ‑‑ Ss. 101 to 103‑Burden of proof‑Burden lies on plaintiff to prove his claim‑Plaintiff failing to discharge such burden, held, cannot take assistance from weakness, real or apparent of defendant s case.‑[Burden of proof]. ‑‑ S. 111‑‑Transaction with Pardanashin lady‑Defendant, a Pardanashin lady and for that matter not literate‑Held, gets adequate protection under law and transaction, with her, to be strictly proved by party claiming same.

Judgment & Decree

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑

‑‑ O. XIII, r. 3‑No objection taken when document exhibited --Court, held, not prevented from adjudicating its true nature. [Document]. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑

‑‑ Ss. 101 to 103‑Burden of proof‑Burden lies on plaintiff to prove his claim‑Plaintiff failing to discharge such burden, held, cannot take assistance from weakness, real or apparent of defendant s case.‑[Burden of proof]. (d) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑‑

‑‑ S. 111‑‑Transaction with Pardanashin lady‑Defendant, a Pardanashin lady and for that matter not literate‑Held, gets adequate protection under law and transaction, with her, to be strictly proved by party claiming same. Sulleman Kassim for Appellants. Muhammad Sharif for Respondents. Dates of hearing : 20th and 23rd April, 1980.