1981 PLP 353 (CLC)
SALEH MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Appellant Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | 1981 PLP 353 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | S C (A J & K) |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | SALEH MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Appellant Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 353 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 353 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the S C (A J & K) bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 353 (CLC) (SALEH MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Appellant Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Mohammad Siddique, Advocate for Appellant.
- Ch. Muhammad Taj, Advocate for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On Appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 10th November, 1975, in Civil Appeal No. 88 of 1974), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ S. 100‑Second appeal‑Finding of fact‑Cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless evidence shown to have been misread or finding based on surmises and conjectures‑Erroneous finding of fact, however inexcusable, cannot be disturbed unless there exists some defect in procedure causing error in decision on merits‑Finding on a fact cannot be disturbed by High Court on ground that inferences drawn by Courts did not fairly arise out of evidence‑Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal simply because some other point could also be taken.‑[Finding of fact]. Nadir Shah v. Lal Shah P L D 1954 Lah. 447; Abdul Majid and others v. Khalil Ahmed P L D 1955 F C 38 and Pathana v. Mst. Wasal and another PLD1965SC134rel.&fol. Muhammad Shafi and another v. Sher Ali 1970 S C M R 510 ref. (b) Witness‑ ‑ Defendant not entering into witness‑box to oppose plaintiff Omission of defendant to examine himself as a witness and manifest nature of his possession‑‑Adverse inference will go against defendant. Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and another A I R 1927 P C 230 ref. (c) Burden of proof‑ ‑‑ Person alleging a fact to exist and proving same affirmatively and establishing a prima facie case‑Held, burden of proof shifts to other side. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ S. 100‑Second appeal‑Concurrent finding of fact‑Reasoning to undo concurrent finding arrived at by subordinate Courts amounting to appraisal of evidence‑Held, such appraisal of evidence not per missible under S. 100,‑ [Finding of fact‑Evidence].
Judgment & Decree
Nadir Shah v. Lal Shah P L D 1954 Lah. 447; Abdul Majid and others v. Khalil Ahmed P L D 1955 F C 38 and Pathana v. Mst. Wasal and another PLD1965SC134rel.&fol. Muhammad Shafi and another v. Sher Ali 1970 S C M R 510 ref. (b) Witness‑ ‑ Defendant not entering into witness‑box to oppose plaintiff Omission of defendant to examine himself as a witness and manifest nature of his possession‑‑Adverse inference will go against defendant. Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and another A I R 1927 P C 230 ref. (c) Burden of proof‑ ‑‑ Person alleging a fact to exist and proving same affirmatively and establishing a prima facie case‑Held, burden of proof shifts to other side. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ S. 100‑Second appeal‑Concurrent finding of fact‑Reasoning to undo concurrent finding arrived at by subordinate Courts amounting to appraisal of evidence‑Held, such appraisal of evidence not per missible under S. 100,‑ [Finding of fact‑Evidence]. Raja Mohammad Siddique, Advocate for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Taj, Advocate for Respondent.