Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 1022 of 1984, decided on 7th September, 1985.
(Against judgment and order, dated 9‑6‑1984 of Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Civil Revision No. 151 of 1978).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XIII, r. 2‑ Additional evidence‑‑Permission to lead‑‑Revision against‑‑Order to produce additional evidence‑‑Question, whether no revision was competent before High Court against order of trial Court granting permission to lead additional evidence, purely legal one and relating to a pending matter‑‑Petition converted into appeal.
Muhammad Asghar v. District Judge, Sialkot and 3 others 1984 SCMR 1225 rel.
Sh. Inayat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
M. Ismail, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Ataur Rahman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 7th September, 1985.
‑The petitioner is a pre‑emptor in a pending civil suit and seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 9th of June, 1984 whereby permission granted to produce the copy of a registered deed by way of additional evidence was recalled on a revision petition filed by the respondents.
The right of pre‑emotion claimed by the pre‑emptor relates to an urban property and in order to prove his superior right of pre emption, he sought and obtained from the trial Court the permission on an application under order XIII, rule 2, C.P.C. to produce the copy of a registered deed in order to show contiguity of his property. The permission was subject to the payment of Rs.30 as costs with a right to the defendant to produce evidence in its rebuttal. In the civil revision the High Court interfered with it on the ground that sufficient cause was not shown for non‑production of the document at ail earlier stage.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact no revision petition against permission to lead additional evidence was at all competent and the discretion exercised by the trial Court in any case should have been interfered with. The learned counsel has relied oil the order granting leave to appeal‑by this Court in Muhammad Asghar v. District Judge, Sialkot and 3 others 1984 S C f1 R 1225.
As the question involved is a purely legal one and relates to a pending matter, we convert this petition into an appeal. Security of Rs.2,500 shall be deposited within one month and the appeal shall be made ready for hearing within six months after service of notice. To be heard on tile present record with liberty to the parties to file such additional documents as they consider necessary.
M.Y.H. Appeal admitted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer