2019 PLP 1566 (CLC)
Mst. SALMA KAUSAR — Petitioner Versus ANAYAT ALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1566 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SALMA KAUSAR — Petitioner Versus ANAYAT ALI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1566 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1566 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1566 (CLC) (Mst. SALMA KAUSAR — Petitioner Versus ANAYAT ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Atif Mushtaq Bhutta for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XLI, R. 27
Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court
Scope
Order XLI, R. 27, C.P.C. provided that Appellate Court could allow a party to lead additional evidence in case request for producing such evidence was made before the Trial Court but said court did not allow the same or the said evidence was required for just decision of the matter by the Appellate Court.
O. XLI, R. 27
Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court
Scope
Petitioner sought permission to lead additional evidence by referring the matter to expert for comparison of thumb impression of respondent with the ones available on original mutation
Appellate Court dismissed the application for production of additional evidence
Petitioner had neither averred in her written statement for comparison of the thumb impression nor during the trial she had made any request
Appellate Court had not required the said evidence to be produced in evidence to enable it to "pronounce judgment" and no substantial cause had been pleaded by petitioner to produce such evidence at the appellate stage
Grounds provided under O. XLI, R. 27, C.P.C. had not been established by petitioner
Allowing or disallowing the said application was discretionary with the Appellate Court and discretion exercised by the court of competent jurisdiction could not be called in question in constitutional jurisdiction
Petitioner had to wait for decision of final appeal before calling in question the order passed by Appellate Court refusing to allow additional evidence
Constitutional petition, being premature, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, J.
Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Muzaffargarh, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence by referring the matter to expert for comparison of thumb impression of respondent No.1 with the ones available on Original Mutation No. 648 dated 16.06.2005 has been declined.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the afore-referred additional evidence relating to comparison of thumb impression was required for just decision of the case and the said application has not rightly been refused.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner has filed the application for additional evidence seeking comparison of thumb impressions of the respondent No.1 with thumb impressions available on mutation No. 648 for the first time before the appellate court, which has been declined by the said court. The Order XLI, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. provides that the appellate court may allow a party to lead additional evidence in case request for producing such evidence was made before the trial court but the said court did not allow the same or the said evidence was required to be received on the record by the court for just decision of the matter. In the present case, the appellate court while adjudicating upon the application for permission to lead additional evidence has observed that the petitioner neither averred in her written statement for comparison of the thumb impression on the plaintiff/respondent No.1 with the thumb impression over the impugned mutation nor during the trial she made any request. The appellate court has also not required the said evidence to be produced in evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment and no substantial cause has been pleaded by the petitioner to produce such evidence at the appellate stage. Grounds provided under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. have not been established. Allowing or disallowing the said application was discretionary with the appellate court and discretion exercised by the court of competent jurisdiction cannot be called in question at this stage in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court when the main appeal is still pending before the said court and no illegality or violation of any law has been pointed out in the impugned order. The petitioner must wait for the decision of the final appeal before calling in question the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the appellate court refusing to allow additional evidence along with any final challengeable passed against the petitioner. At this stage, this petition is premature and consequently dismissed. SA/S-16/L Petition dismissed.