1981 PLP 149 (SCMR)
SHAKIR ALI KHAN AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus TAUHID AHMAD KHAN ETC.-Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 149 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- S. 151-Production of additional evidence in trial Court-Authority rests with Court to grant permission-Production of such evidence, held, -not a matter of right but dependent on discretion of Court.- a Evidence. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAKIR ALI KHAN AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus TAUHID AHMAD KHAN ETC.-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 149 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 149 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- S. 151-Production of additional evidence in trial Court-Authority rests with Court to grant permission-Production of such evidence, held, -not a matter of right but dependent on discretion of Court.- a Evidence. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 149 (SCMR) (SHAKIR ALI KHAN AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus TAUHID AHMAD KHAN ETC.-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- G. A. Farid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 16th July, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(On ,leave to appeal against the judgment and orders of the Lahore High Court dated 18-8-1979 in Writ Petition No. 4454 of 1979). -- S. 151-Production of additional evidence in trial Court-Authority rests with Court to grant permission-Production of such evidence, held, -not a matter of right but dependent on discretion of Court.- a [Evidence].
Judgment & Decree
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-Shakir Ali Khan etc. filed a civil suit praying for a mandatory injunction requiring the respondents to remove the walls and keep open the passage of Koocha Khas for the petitioners. A copy of the plan was attached with the plaint. The respondents contested the suit. When the case came up for final arguments the petitioners moved an application for permission to prove the site plan which had been annexed to the plaint but which had not been proved at any stage when the evidence was recorded. This prayer was rejected on the ground that meanwhile another plan had already been exhibited.
2. The petitioners felt aggrieved and moved the District Judge in his revisional jurisdiction. Their prayer did not find favour with the learned District Judge and, therefore, they filed a Writ Petition No. 4454/79 before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed by an order of a learned Single Judge of that Court on 18-8-1979. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
3. It has been submitted before us that it was incumbent upon the civil Courts to have granted the permission.
4. Order 18(2) of the Code of Civil. Procedure gives the authority to the Court to grant permission for production of additional evidence. It is clear from the rule itself that, production of such evidence is not a matter of right and is dependent upon the discretion of the civil Court. This discretion was duly exercised by the learned Civil Judge and the petitioner was able to test the correctness of it by filing a revision petition before the District Judge. That is all that the law permits to the petitioners.
5. Since it was not a case of lack of lawful authority the writ petition wart just not maintainable before the High Court. The High Court, there fore, acted in accordance with law in dismissing the writ petition and we affirm that order Leave to appeal is refused. Leave refused.