Find a Lawyer

MST. WAZIRAN MAI versus ALLAH WASAYA

: O: XLIy R 27 App Preparation of Additional Evidence in Appellate Court As per the order passed in the ope scope rev review application, additional evidence was presented in the appellate court but the appellate court refused to allow the opposing party to present the same evidence. done. The review request was not allowed - Validation ??? The procedure proposed for the recording of the evidence was based on rationality - the defendant had no idea in his affidavits that the defendant had examined his evidence. How would you reject the evidence while the defendant, in guiding his evidence, knows that the evidence was headed by the defendant and the evidence through which he had to reject the same - the defendant presented the evidence in relation to the whole case. Should be allowed, which was also granted to the plaintiff by denial of the right. Opposition was also allowed to refuse. The key evidence in the rebuttal was also part of the plaintiff's evidence - a nod order approved by the Ampag Appellate Court was set aside and provided an opportunity to direct the dismissal evidence. Was allowed to modify the circumstances, [pp. 145, 146, 147] A, B and C.

P L D 2017 Lahore 144

Before Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, J

Mst. WAZIRAN MAI through Special Attorney and another—Petitioners

versus

ALLAH WASAYA and 3 others—Respondents

Civil Revision No.810 of 2013, decided on 30th March, 2016.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—

—O: XLIy R. 27—Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court—Scope—Additional evidence was produced in the Appellate Court according to order passed in revision petition but Appellate Court refused to allow the opposite party to produce rebuttal of said evidence holding that same was not allowed in the revision petition—Validity— Procedure prescribed for recording of evidence was based on common sense—Plaintiff while examining his evidence in affirmative had no idea as to by which evidence defendant would rebut his evidence whereas defendant while leading his evidence knew what evidence had been led by the plaintiff and by which evidence he had to rebut the same—Defendant should be permitted to lead evidence with regard to whole case which right had also been given to the plaintiff by way of rebuttal—When additional evidence was led, opposite party was to be permitted to rebut same—Leading evidence in rebuttal was also a part of plaintiff's evidence—Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence was granted— Revision was allowed in circumstances, [pp. 145, 146, 147] A, B & C

Harichand and others v. Mst. Bachan Kaur and others AIR 1971 Punjab and Haryana 355; The Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore v. H. Narayanaiah and others AIR' 1976 SC 2403; Avtar Singh and another v. Baldev Singh and others 2015(1) CivCC 728 and (1) The Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan, Communication and Works Department and (2) The Advisor, Town Planning v. Gulzar Muhammad PLD 1969 SC 60 rel.

Ch. Liaqat Ali for Petitioners.

Malik Muhammad Latif Khokhar for Respondents.

best advocate from Laliah lawyer