Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
First Appeal No. 57 of 1967, decided on 4th December, 1980.
‑‑ S. 60 read with S. 68‑‑Documents not under purview of S. 68‑ Proof of time of execution of‑Document not required to be proved by any attesting witness but question involved as to when document executed‑Held, necessary for appellant to examine stamp vendor, scribe, executants, attesting witnesses or some of them in corrobora tion of his evidence.
‑‑ Ss. 101 to 103‑Recitals in document‑Contradiction of‑Appel lant relying on statement of delivery of possession of disputed land in agreement‑Held, every recital in a deed not conclusive evidence of statement contained therein.
Ghulam Hassan and others v. Sarfraz Khan and others P L D 1956 S C (Pak.) 309; Shamshad Ali Shah and others v. Syed Hassan Shah and others P L D 1.964 S.C 143 and Ashiq Hussain and another v. Ashia Ali 1972SCMR50rel.
‑‑‑ O. XVIII, r. 18 read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 3‑Site inspection note‑Evidentiary value of ‑Held, statement recorded by Judge during course of inspection‑Of no evidentiary value unless person whose statement recorded subjected to cross‑examina tion or opposite‑party given opportunity to do so.
Muhammad Amin and another v. Chief Judge, Small Causes Court. Karachi and others P L D 1963 Kar. 695 ref.
‑‑ O. VIII, r. 1 read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 3‑Eviden tiary value of written statement‑‑Written statement by respondent trot verified on oath. Respondent not examined. Held, is circumstances, written statement cannot be treated as evidence Evidence‑Pleadings).
Mst. Khair‑ul‑Nisa and 6 others v. Malik Muhammad lshaque and 2 others P L D 1972 S C 25 ref.
‑‑ O. VIII, r. 5 read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 58‑Admis sion in written statement‑Proof of‑One respondent (alleged to be colluding with plaintiff) making admission to his written state ment‑Such admission, held, not proof of allegation so far as other respondents concerned‑Held further, Court empowered to require admitted fact to be proved otherwise than by such admission.‑[Admission‑Pleadings].
M. Modir on Principles and Digest of the Law of Evidence (Pak. Edn.), p. 163 ref.
S. M. Sadiq for Appellant.
Wajihuddin Ahmed for Respondents Nos 2 and 3.
Date of hearing : 4th December, 1980.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer