2000 PLP 1243 (CLC)
AMANAT ALI and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1243 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | AMANAT ALI and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1243 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1243 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1243 (CLC) (AMANAT ALI and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irfan Ahmad Khan for:Petitioner. Arshad Ali Chohan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th February, 2000
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Arts. 74, 76 & 77‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Secondary evidence‑‑‑Production of‑‑‑No positive proof was available on record to establish existence of two documents in question‑‑‑Order of Trial Court allowing production of photo copies of said documents was premature as party producing photo copies should prove existence of said documents‑‑‑Once existence of documents had been established, respondents who intended to produce photo copies of said documents, could be allowed to produce documents by way of secondary evidence subject to compliance with provisions of Arts.76 & 77 of Qanun‑e Shahadat, 1984. Sardar Bakhsh v. Mst. Maqsood Bibi PLD 1994 Lah. 452 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Arts.76 & 77 of Qanun‑e Shahadat, 1984. Sardar Bakhsh v. Mst. Maqsood Bibi PLD 1994 Lah. 452 ref. Irfan Ahmad Khan for:Petitioner. Arshad Ali Chohan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th February, 2000 Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the trial Court has allowed the respondent to adduce secondary evidence even though conditions precedent for allowing such evidence have not been fulfilled by the respondent. He has referred to the case titled Sardar Bakhsh v. Mst. Maqsood Bibi PLD 1994 Lah. 452 to argue that some positive proof is required to be produced by the respondent to establish the existence of the documents in question, before he can be permitted to prove the said documents by means of secondary evidence.
2. Admittedly no positive proof at present is available on record to establish the existence of the two documents in question namely the argument to sell and notice of Talab‑e‑Ishhad. In these circumstances, the order of the learned trial Court, dated 13‑10‑1999 allowing production of photo copies of the two documents, is premature. In the first instance, the respondent should prove the existence of the documents. Once the existence of the documents A has been established, the respondent may be allowed to produce the documents by way of secondary evidence subject to compliance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order.
3. In the above circumstances the order, dated 13‑10‑1999 passed by the trial Court is set aside. This, however, shall not prevent the trial Court from proceeding in the manner indicated above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he does not press his objection to the impugned order, dated 13‑10‑1999 to the extent it relates to the list of witnesses submitted by the respondent under Order 16, Rule 1, C. P. C. H.B.T./A‑44/L Order accordingly.