1983 PLP 728 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus Mst. NAZIR BEGUM AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 728 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus Mst. NAZIR BEGUM AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evidence Act (I of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 728 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evidence Act (I of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 728 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 728 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus Mst. NAZIR BEGUM AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents,
- Date of hearing: 20th March, 1983.
- Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 18-9-1982 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 3737 of 1982). .-- S. 74(2), (5)-Documentary evidence-Public document-Document does not become a public document merely because it is registered document not covered by S. 74(5)-Cannot be proved by production of certified copies thereof. Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji A I R 1943 P C 83 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji A I R 1943 P C 83 ref. Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents, Date of hearing: 20th March, 1983. M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑The petitioners, who are defendant in a suit for permanent injunction instituted on 18‑2‑1977, had, at the stage when their evidence had been completed and the case had been fixed for recording the statement of their counsel and the evidence of the plaintiffs, moved an application on 9‑4‑1981 for permission to produce certified copies of (1) power‑of‑attorney and (2) the sale‑deed, on the plea that they could not produce the same earlier through inadvertence. The application was refused by the trial Court. The petitioners' revision before the Additional District Judge having failed, they instituted a writ petition before the Lahore High Court but the same, too, was dismissed in limine. The High Court noticing that the plaintiffs toad from the very outset denied the execution of the documents and challenged their authenticity, expressed the view that the documents not being covered by section 74(5) of the Evidence Act, the same could not be proved by the production. of certified copies thereof. 2. t he contention is that the documents were public documents covered by subsection (2) o1' section 74 of the Evidence Act and as such secondary evidence could be produced. The contention has no merit. document '' does cut become a public document merely because it is registered. It had been held in Gopal leas v. Sri Thakurji (A I R 1943 P C 83) that the original receipt executed by an individual and registered tinder the Registration Act is not a public record of private document within section 74(2). By virtue of subsection (5) of Section 74 a registered document has to be one the execution of which is disputed. The High Court was, therefore, justified in upholding the refusal of the petitioners' application. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.