| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 2366 2001 SLD 2366 2001 CLC 468 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.2033 of 2000, decision dated: 14-09-2000
RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, J
Ch. Arshad Mehmood for Petitioner
Civil Revision No.2033 of 2000, decision dated: 14-09-2000
RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, J
Ch. Arshad Mehmood for Petitioner
NAZIR AHMAD
VS
Mst. GHAZALA BASHIR
Law:
Section:
Evidence------- Shifting of evidence of one case to the other---Validity---Evidence of one case could not be shifted verbatim to the other case for decision for such procedure was unknown to the Civil Procedure Code---Consent of parties could not change prescribed procedure because law would not permit the change of procedure through consent. Muhammad Younas v. The Crown PLD 1953 Lah. 321; Shabbir and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima 1987 CLC 1407; Sheikh Abdul Hamid v. Muhammad Siddique PLD 1981 Lah. 42 and Malik Aman v. Haji Muhammad Tufail PLD 1976 Lah. 1446 ref. ORDER This petition is directed against the remand order, dated 6-6-2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat whereby he set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 18-4-2000 and directed the trial Court to decide the case afresh after recording evidence of the parties. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that one Bashir Ahmad father of respondent and real brother of the petitioner was owner of agricultural land measuring 32 Kanals, 13 Marlas in village Machiana, Tehsil and District Gujrat. He gifted the said land to the respondent, his only daughter through Mutation No.4754, dated 8-1-1997. The donor Bashir Ahmad died on 21-1-1997. Petitioner filed a suit for declaration with the consequential relief on 24-2-1997 seeking cancellation of abovementioned mutation being illegal, void executed during Marz-ul-Maut and ineffective qua his rights of inheritance. The suit was resisted by the respondent contending that the gift was genuine and made as a result of love and affection by her father. Respondent raised preliminary objections regarding cause of action, locus standi, valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, suit being mala fide, frivolous, vexatious and special cost under section 35-A, C.P.C. was also claimed. Learned trial Judge framed the following issues on divergent pleadings of the parties:-- (1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD (2) Whether the suit has insufficiently been valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, if so what is the correct valuation? OPD (3) Whether…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492