1983 PLP 2454 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 2454 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 2454 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 2454 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 2454 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Siddique Safdar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) -- O. XII1, r. 2-Application to produce document after close of evidence-Dismissal of-Plaintiffs, one year and three months after closing their evidence, moving application for permission to produce (nearly thirty years old) original receipt - Trial Court dismissing application giving sound and cogent reasons and observing plaintiff's already given sufficient time to produce evidence and no justifica tion for producing receipt which requires examination of witnesses Additional District Judge also dismissing plaintiffs' revision petition observing receipt should have been produced with suit - Held, orders of Courts below quite legal and do not merit interference by High Court in writ jurisdiction - Held further, both learned .. Courts below competent to refuse production of receipt at late stage and have given reasons for same - Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Siddique Safdar for Petitioner. This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981 whereby Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Yasin, petitioners want this Court to set aside the order dated 15th July, 1981 of the Civil Judge and order dated 15th April, 1982 of the Additional District Judge, respondent No. 1 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief are that the peti tioners herein filed a declaratory suit against Allah Dewaya and Faiz Bakhsh respondents Nos. 2 and 3 seeking declaration to the effect that they are the owners in possession of the suit land measuring 6 Marlas purchased by-their predesessor-in-interest from the respondents. The suit was contested by the respondents Nos. 2 and
3. The petitioners herein closed their evidence on 9th March, 1980 and thereafter on 13th June, 1981, i. e. after one year and three months they moved an application for permission to produce the original receipt dated 18th March, 1952. The learned trial Court dismissed this application on 15th July, 1981 Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed revision against that order which was also dismissed on 15th April, 1982. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel contends that a valuable right of the peti tioners is involved and if the petitioners are not allowed to produce the receipt in the evidence, they will suffer irreparable loss and that both the learned Courts below have ignored the fact that the receipt in dispute was mentioned in the list of the reliance and as such the petitioners had a right to produce the same at any stage of the suit.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners I find that the trial. Court was legally competent to refuse permission to produce the receipt and for that the learned Court has given sound and cogent reasons. The trial Court has observed that the petitioners were given sufficient time but they did not produce the evidence and their evidence was closed on 9th March, 1980 and there was no justification for permission to produce the receipt which would require the examination of the witnesses. The learned Additional District Judge has observed that the receipt should have beers produced with the suit and that the receipt was not put to the respondent/defendant when he appeared in the witness box and that the receipt does not tantamount to an agreement to sell or a sale-deed.
5. I am of the opinion that the orders of the learned Courts below as detailed above are quite legal orders and do not merit any interference by this Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction. Both the learned Courts below were competent to refuse the production of the receipt at late stage and have given reasons for the same. For what has been stated above there is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine. R.M.A. Writ petition dismissed.