1998 PLP 78 (SCMR)
Mst. HAFIZAN BEGUM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 78 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. HAFIZAN BEGUM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 78 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 78 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 78 (SCMR) (Mst. HAFIZAN BEGUM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Syed Jamshed Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th February, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 9‑1‑1997 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in W.P. No.5381 of 1993). Rukhsana Bibi v. Fatima Bibi PLD 1985 Lah. 273; Jaffar Abbas v. Ahmad PLD 1991 SC 1131 and Ghulam Farid Khan v. Muhammad Hanif Khan 1990 SCMR 763 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/caveators and grant leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment to examine the following points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners:-- (1) That the agreement between the parties to get the dispute as to the paternity of Ahmed Naveed minor defendant decided by Abdul Khaliq (who was to appear as D.W.2) was without the express leave of the Court nor was it considered by the Court whether the agreement in question was in the interest of the minor defendant and was beneficial to him. The agreement in question was, therefore, hit by the provisions of Order 32 rule 7 C.P.C. Reliance was placed on Rukhsana Bibi v. Fatima Bibi (PLD 1985 Lah. 273) and Jaffar Abbas v. Ahmad (PLD 1991 SC 1131). (2) That the decision of the suit should not have been based on the award of the referee alone and the trial Court should also have taken into consideration the evidence already available on the record and if deemed necessary, the Court should also have recorded further evidence. (3) That the cases decided on special oath are different from those where a referee is appointed to decide the point in controversy like the one in the present case. (4) That the decision/verdict given by a referee as in the present case could not be treated as a "statement furnishing information" but was an award and, therefore, the trial Court before making it a rule of the Court should have invited objections from the parties but no such objections were invited. Reference was made to Ghulam Farid Khan v. Muhammad Hanif Khan (1990 SCMR 763). (5) That the dispute regarding inheritance could not at all be referred for) decision of a referee.
2. The operation of the impugned judgment and decree is suspended subject to the petitioners furnishing adequate/reasonable security to the satisfaction of the trial Court that in the event of dismissal of their appeal by this Court, they shall pay mesne profits to the respondents from the date of institution of the suit. A.A./H-5/SC Leave granted.