1989 PLP 1818 (SCMR)
Mst. NASREEN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus NAZAR HUSSAIN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1818 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. NASREEN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus NAZAR HUSSAIN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 191181 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1818 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 191181 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1818 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1818 (SCMR) (Mst. NASREEN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus NAZAR HUSSAIN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan lmtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ncmo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 6‑3‑1988, passed in C.R. No. 69/88). ‑OXIII, R.2 & O.XLIII, R.3‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑ Leave to appeal granted to consider that for exercise of jurisdiction under O.XIII, R.2, C.P.C. to examine the nature of documents was a must; that if documents were public documents of unimpeachable authenticity, their late production wits not a ground under O. XIII, R. 2, C.P.C. and that notice under O. XLIII, R. 3, C.P.C. was not required to be sent to other party in appeals which did not fall under O. XLI11, C.P.C. Datc of hearing: 16th May, 1989.
Judgment & Decree
USMAN ALI SHAH, J: ‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the dismissal of their civil revision by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, arising out of a declaratory suit for title and confirmation of possession of the disputed land, filed by the respondent No.
1. The learned trial Judge after framing the issues on the pleadings of the arties, djourned the proceedings for evidence. Nazar Hussain etc. plaintiffs/respondents and defendants/petitioners 1‑3 concluded their evidence while defendants 4‑11 requested for time to produce some documentary evidence. The learned Trial Judge observed that the documents in question would be surprise for the other party, declined to adjourn and closed the evidence vide his order dated 7‑9‑1986. Appeal of the petitioners against this order was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 21‑1‑1988. Revision petition of the petitioners before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench was also dismissed on 6‑3‑1988. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for exercise of jurisdiction under Order X111, Rule 2 of the C.P.C., to examine the nature of documents is a must. He laid emphasis that there is ample law on the point that if documents arc public documents of unimpeachable authenticity, its late production is not a ground under Order X111, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. He also contended that the learned High Court failed to consider that notice under Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the CPC wits not required to be sent to the other party in appeals which did not fall under Order XLIII, CPC. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we think that the contentions raised involve points of law which require consideration of this Court. The petition is converted into appeal. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,(XX). Appeal he fixed on the present record for final hearing in tune, 1989. No stay of proceedings but final judgment shall not be announced until the final disposal of the appeal. M.A.K./N‑170/S Leave granted.