1989 PLP 1137 (SCMR)
GHULAM FATIMAH‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARI F‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1137 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Allah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM FATIMAH‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARI F‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (y of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1137 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (y of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1137 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Allah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1137 (SCMR) (GHULAM FATIMAH‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARI F‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 6‑11‑1983 in C.IZ. 140.1/1983). ‑‑‑O.XLI, R.27‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3)‑‑Appellate Court before dismissing appeal rejected also the petitioner's application for additional evidence‑‑On the evidence led before Trial Court the respondent's claim was found justified and accordingly suit had been decreed‑‑Petitioner thus could not have been allowed the concession of additional evidence at appellate stage Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant against the dismissal by the High Court of her Civil Revision. It had arisen out of a decree for possession of the suit house in favour of the plaintiff‑respondent passed by the trial Court, which was upheld in appeal. The appellate Court had before dismissing the appeal rejected also the petitioner's application for additional evidence. The controversy between the parties and the dispute brought before the Court in its essential aspects related to the boundaries of two properties and identification of ,the suit house. On the evidence led before the Court, the respondent's claim was found justified and accordingly the suit had been decreed. Learned counsel frankly stated that if the plea for additional evidence would have been allowed by the appellate Court, the petitioner might have succeeded. We having heard the learned counsel on the question of additional evidence, have not been able to agree with him that the petitioner could have been allowed the concession of additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C. Otherwise too, after hearing him, we do not find any merit in this petition. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.BA./G‑185/S Leave refused.