2010 PLP 733 (CLC)
Mst. SHAHNAZ BEGUM alias SHAHNAZ AKHTAR and 2 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. ZAHIDA SAIF and 11 others Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 733 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SHAHNAZ BEGUM alias SHAHNAZ AKHTAR and 2 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. ZAHIDA SAIF and 11 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 733 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 733 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 733 (CLC) (Mst. SHAHNAZ BEGUM alias SHAHNAZ AKHTAR and 2 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. ZAHIDA SAIF and 11 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Yasin Hatif for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 132, 133 & 134
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Petitioners were defendants of the case wherein certain witnesses were examined by the respondents
In order to cross-examine the witnesses, the petitioners moved an application for re-examining them, which application was rejected by the Trial Court and that rejection order was upheld in revision
Counsel for the petitioners had contended that as many other cases were consolidated, in that context the evidence, which had been produced by the respondents, was necessary to be rebutted; and it would be done through the process of cross-examination as well
When the statement of the respondents' counsel had come on the record, the deposition of the witnesses would not be used against the petitioners
For all intents and purposes, the said statements were non-existent as far as the petitioners' right and interest in the litigation were concerned
No case had been made out for interference in the constitutional jurisdiction
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The petitioners are the defendants of the case, in which certain witnesses were examined by the respondents; in order to cross-examine the witnesses, the petitioners moved an application for re-examining them, however, the application was rejected, vide order dated 24-9-2008; this order when challenged in the revision has been upheld on 29-1-2009. The learned trial Court has held that "The careful perusal of the record reveals that respondents Nos.6 to 9 examined D.Ws.1 to 14 with regard to the Issues Nos.1 to 15 framed by the trial Court in the suit. The learned counsel for the respondents has specifically recorded his statement that the evidence of D.W.1 to 14 may not be read against the present petitioner. In view of his statement, now there can be no question of re-summoning, and re-cross-examining the D. Ws. 1 to 14 by the petitioners, therefore, the revision petition in hand is dismissed."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there were many other cases, which were consolidated, and thus in that context the evidence, which had been produced by the respondents, was necessary to be rebutted and it would be done through the process of cross-examination as well.
3. I am afraid, when the statement of the respondent' counsel has come on the record, the depositions of the witnesses shall not be used against the petitioners; for all intents and purposes, the said statements are non-existent as far as the petitioners' right and interest in the litigation are concerned. No case has been made out for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction. Dismissed. H.B.T./S-273/L Petition dismissed.