1989 PLP 427 (CLC)
N OOR U D DI N‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SULLEMAN and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 427 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Nian and Abdul Rasool Agha, JJ |
| Parties | N OOR U D DI N‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SULLEMAN and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 427 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 427 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Nian and Abdul Rasool Agha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 427 (CLC) (N OOR U D DI N‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SULLEMAN and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ishaque Shams for Petitioner.
- Anwar Zaheer Ismali for Respondent No.l.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑
0. XIII, R. 2‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Additional evidence, production of‑‑Ejectment application‑‑Evidence concluded and thereafter case was allegedly listed for sixty times for arguments‑‑Rent Controller declining application of petitioner tenant for production of additional evidence‑‑Order of Rent Controller not without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction or in violation of law‑‑Discretionary with Trial Court to allow or not to allow production of a document after closing of side and after expiry of nearly two years from date of closing of side‑‑Remedy, if any, available to petitioner was to wait till passing of final order in case same went against him, to take a ground about refusal to admit additional evidence in appeal.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ishaque Shams for Petitioner. Anwar Zaheer Ismali for Respondent No.l. This petition is directed against an order dated 14‑2‑1988 passed by the learned Ist Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R . A . No.10 of 1983 declining the present petitioner's application under Order XIII, Rule 2 C.P.C. for the production of certain alleged rent receipts in respect of certain shops. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the respondent filed aforesaid rent case for ejectment inter alia on the ground of personal requirement. The evidence was concluded in the above case in March, 1986 and thereafter the case was listed, according to the learned counsel for the respondent No.l, for about 60 times for arguments. The petitioner filed the aforesaid application, as per averment of the learned counsel for the respondent No.l, that was the 4th application, whereas according to the learned counsel for the petitioner there is nothing mentioned in the order. Be that as it may, the learned Rent Controller declined the above application, hence the petitioner has filed the present petition. In support of the above petition Mr. Muhammad lshaque Shams, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that since the impugned order is a final order as far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no remedy available to the petitioner and, therefore, the writ is competent. It will suffice to observe that it is always discretionary with a trial Court either to allow or not to allow the production of a document after the closing of side and after the expiry of nearly 2 years from the date of the closing of the side. The impugned order, therefore, B cannot be said to be an order without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or in violation of any provision of law. The remedy, if any, to the petitioner is to wait till the passing of the final order and in case the same goes against him, to take a ground in the appeal. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed in limine. M . Y . H . /N‑136/ K Petition dismissed.