1994 PLP 1013 (MLD)
Mst. RASHIDA KHANAM and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SIRAJ BEGUM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1013 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. RASHIDA KHANAM and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SIRAJ BEGUM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1013 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1013 (MLD)?
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: 1994 PLP 1013 (MLD) (Mst. RASHIDA KHANAM and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SIRAJ BEGUM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Mumtaz Hussain Bokhari for Petitioners.
- MA. Hayee Khan for Respondents.
- 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at pre-admission stage. The petitioners have prayed that they be allowed to produce the sanctioned plan of the disputed house alongwith the sanction letter issued by the Lahore Municipal Corporation. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 pointed out that the application for additional evidence was filed merely to delay the suit which was pending since 20-7-1981. He pointed out that the petitioners were not entitled to the discretionary relief because they have been consistently opposing the respondents' application for production of the above-referred documents. He pointed out that Taj Din predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had filed an application on 9-4-1982 with a prayer that the defendant be directed to produce the sanctioned plan of the house. However, Siddique Mahmood defendant (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) opposed the application through written reply dated 5-6-1982. It was stated in preliminary objection No.1 of the reply as under:---
Headnotes / Summary
O.XIII, R.2
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Production of documents at the later stage of trial was disallowed by Trial Court as also by Appellate Court
Earlier plaintiff-respondent's application for the production of same documents had been opposed by the predecessor of defendant/petitioner and after his death by his successors (defendants/petitioners) on the plea that documents in question had no relevancy to the suit
Petitioners, having opposed production of such documents earlier at stage of the suit could not be allowed to produce the same at later stage
Petitioners on account of their own conduct by opposing production of documents in question, on the application of defendant/ respondent would not be entitled to discretionary relief under Art.199 of the Constitution.
Judgment & Decree
Through this Constitution petition the petitioners have assailed the order dated 23-11-1992 whereby their application for production of Additional evidence was rejected by the trial Court and the appellate order, dated 13-6-1993 whereby their revision was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Lahore.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at pre-admission stage. The petitioners have prayed that they be allowed to produce the sanctioned plan of the disputed house alongwith the sanction letter issued by the Lahore Municipal Corporation. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 pointed out that the application for additional evidence was filed merely to delay the suit which was pending since 20-7-1981. He pointed out that the petitioners were not entitled to the discretionary relief because they have been consistently opposing the respondents' application for production of the above-referred documents. He pointed out that Taj Din predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had filed an application on 9-4-1982 with a prayer that the defendant be directed to produce the sanctioned plan of the house. However, Siddique Mahmood defendant (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) opposed the application through written reply dated 5-6-1982. It was stated in preliminary objection No.1 of the reply as under:
"The sanctioned plan of the house owned by the defendant has got no relevancy with the suit "
3. Again, Taj Din deceased/plaintiff filed an application on 3-11-1982 with certain interrogatories including questions Nos.2 and 3 relating to the sanctioned plan. The petitioners filed their reply giving evasive replies to questions Nos.2 and
3. Thereafter, another application was filed for obtaining a detailed and specific reply from the petitioners. The petitioners stated that the site plan was irrelevant and that the same had been misplaced after the death of Siddique Mahmood, their predecessor-in-interest. The petitioners have not cared to place on the record their replies referred to above. They appear to have suppressed the said documents so that their earlier stand that the sanctioned plan was not relevant, may not come to the notice of the Court. The respondents' contention that the present application for production of additional evidence was filed with a view to prolong the trial appears to have considerable weight. Siddique Mehmood, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and after his death the present petitioners have been opposing the respondents' applications for production of the sanctioned plan since the year 1982.
4. For the foregoing discussion, the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution. The petition is therefore, dismissed in limine. AA./R-123/L Writ petition dismissed,