1989SCMR 1414 (PLP)
AMJAD H. MALIK Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA BEGUM and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR 1414 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | AMJAD H. MALIK Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA BEGUM and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Appeal (Civil) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR 1414 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Appeal (Civil) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR 1414 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR 1414 (PLP) (AMJAD H. MALIK Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA BEGUM and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 8‑11‑1988, passed in Civil Revisions Nos. 1784/D‑85, 1785/13‑85 and 1786/13‑85). ‑‑‑ Appellate Court has to see and consider the evidence produced by the parties and thereafter give the reason for recording the judgment‑‑Where documentary evidence in the form of exhibits and witnesses produced were not considered by the Appellate Court, it was a procedural irregularity justifying the remand. Petitioner in Person
Judgment & Decree
USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioners seek leave in both the petitions against a single order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8‑11‑1988, arising out of two suits filed by Amjad H. Malik, petitioner herein, for specific performance of a contract and the other filed by Mst. Razia Begum, the present respondent No.l, for declaration and permanent injunction. Both the suits were parties dismissed the suit of Amjad HteMalik petitioner and decreed the suit of Mst. Razia Begum, respondent No.l, vide judgment dated 17‑11‑1984. The, petitioner filed two appeals before the learned District Judge, which were accepted by him vide his judgment dated 6‑4‑1985. Being aggrieved Mst. Razia Begum filed two Revision Petitions Nos.1784‑D/85 and 1785‑D/85 and a third one by Ajmal Hayat Malik i.e. No.1786‑D/85 before the High Court, praying for setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. After hearing the petitioner who represented his case in person and perusal of the record in the light of the findings of the Courts below, we have observed some procedural irregularities committed by the lower appellate Court. While reversing the finding of the trial Court, the learned District Judge did not take into consideration the evidence produced by the respondent No.l Mst. Razia Begun as the learned Judge ignored to examine the evidence adduced by her. The High Court has rightly observed that the 1st appellate Court under the law is to see and consider the evidence produced by the parties and thereafter give the reason for recording the judgment. The documentary evidence in the form of A Exhs.P.l to P.24 and also the examination of 7 witnesses produced by her has not been considered by the learned lower appellate Court. The petitioner herein in person argued that evidence of Mst. Razia was not of such a quality which needs discussion. But under the circumstances we agree with the learned High Court that due to non‑consideration of the evidence of the respondents the appeal for rehearing was rightly remanded, The result is that there is no force in both the petitions and are hereby dismissed. Leave refused. M.B.A./A‑480/S Petitions dismissed.