1989 PLP 3574 (MLD)
ISHRAQ ALI and 2 others — Applicants Versus S.MOINUDDIN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3574 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, J |
| Parties | ISHRAQ ALI and 2 others — Applicants Versus S.MOINUDDIN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3574 (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 1989 PLP 3574 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3574 (MLD) (ISHRAQ ALI and 2 others — Applicants Versus S.MOINUDDIN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehmood Ahmed for Respondent No.1.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 14th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XLI, R. 23--Remand of case--Evidence, appreciation of--Suit for possession and mesne profits--Respondent admitting that in allotment order both the parties were shown as allottees--Such document was not produced before Trial Court though original allotment order in favour of plaintiff was produced alongwith written statement--Original allotment order was not got exhibited by either party on which entire case of parties hung--Admission in cross-examination in presence of documentary evidence could hardly be accepted--Case remanded to Trial Court for decision of the case on basis of judgments of High Court and Supreme Court and documentary evidence, if produced, after affording opportunity to parties to produce original allotment order. G.M. Dastgir for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and
3. Date of hearing: 14th March, 1989. The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision application under section 115 CPC are that the Civil Suit No. 687/69 was filed by the applicant and others in the Court of VIIIth Civil Judge First Class Karachi. The suit was dismissed to which Civil Appeal No. 182/85 was filed under section 96, CPI. in the Court of District Judge Karachi which was allowed by 1st Addl. District Judge Karachi East by judgment dated 16th November, 1985. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed this Civil revision. Briefly the facts are that a suit was filed for possession and mesne profit and dispute relating to the allotment order No. 137/63 dated 27-7-1953. I have heard Mr. Dastgir at length. It is argued by the learned counsel that appellate Court has not appreciated the judgment of this Court in second appeal Noor Islam v. Zia Islam and Second Appeal No. 509/67 copies of both the judgments were placed before the Court in written arguments. It is argued that both the parties are allottees of the premises in dispute therefore the suit was rightly dismissed by the Civil Judge First Class. Mr. Mohammad Ahmed, Advocate for the respondent contended that property belongs to respondent and applicant was allowed only to reside as, the parties were interrelated and he has no title over the property therefore they are liable to be dispossessed. I have gone through the judgments relied by Mr. Dastgir. The contention of Mr. Dastgir is that there is an admission on the part of the respondent that in allotment order both the parties were shown as allottees. This document has not been produced before the Civil Judge though this original allotment order No. 137, 63-Block 1/III Drigh Colony in favour of plaintiff's name by Deputy Refugee Commissioner was produced alongwith written statement. Both the parties have not cared to get it exhibited. The entire case; of the parties, hangs on the original allotment of 1953. The order of lease deed was issued in favour of respondent. There is documentary evidence, therefore the admission in the cross-examination by respondent can hardly be accepted. I am sorry that this is an old case of 1969 but crucial point in view of the judgment of this Court is to be decided on the basis of the documents and other relevant factors. The documents must be on the record of the Civil Court. The impugned judgment is set aside the case is remanded back to the Civil judge having jurisdiction who should afford an opportunity to the parties to produce the original allotment order of 1953 as stated above and Civil Judge to base his findings on the basis of the judgment of High Court and Supreme Court and documentary evidence if so produced. M.A.K./I-81/K Case remanded.