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.
Writ Petition No. 2511 of 1985, decided on 10th June, 19 5.
Provisional Constitution Order (1 oaf 1981)--
---Art. 9--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 and 0. XIII, r.2--Refusa to grant permission for production of witness by way of additional evidence, held, did not amount to a case decided within meaning of S. 115, C.P.C.--Order of revisional Court dismissing revision petition on ground of its non-maintainability, upheld in circumstances.-- [Revision].
Habibullah Khan v Pak Cement Industries Ltd. and others 1969 S C M R 965 ref.
Hasnat Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
The petitioner's application for production of witness by way of additional evidence was turned down, by the learned trial Court by its order, dated 10-3-1985. They challenged this order through a revision, which was disallowed by the learned Additional District Judge, on the ground that the refusal to grant permission for production of additions .evidence did not amount to a case decided within the meaning of section 115, C.P.C. The order; dated 19-3-1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in this behalf is sought to be removed through judicial review on the plea that the view taken by him is erroneous and the revision should have been decided on merits.
2. There is no merit in this contention. A reference to Habibullah Khan v. Pak Cement Industries Ltd. and others 1969 S C M R 965, will provide that an order admitting or declining to admit evidence oral or documentary is not a case decided so as to attract the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. The view taken by the learned Additional District Judge is, thus, not open to any exception. Dismissed in limine.
H. A. K.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer