| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 3923 2016 SLD 3923 2016 YLR 2197 |
Sindh High Court
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE
Anwar Mansoor Khan and Bashir Ahmed Khan for Plaintiff. Mansoor-ul-Arfin for Defendant No.1.
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE
Anwar Mansoor Khan and Bashir Ahmed Khan for Plaintiff. Mansoor-ul-Arfin for Defendant No.1.
HAJI ABDUL RAZZAK THROUGH L.RS. AND others---PlaintiffS
VS
. MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. AND others-----Defendants
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----- -----O. XIII, Rr. 1 & 2-----Production of documents-----Principles-----Order XIII, R. 1, C.P.C. caters a situation, wherein, a party to suit has filed documents before the court and subsequently wants to bring and add some other documents, which initially have not been provided in the list of documents filed in terms of the said rule-----Order XIII, R. 2, C.P.C. enables the court to even consider the documents, which though were not initially in the list of documents filed before the court but are being brought subsequently on record through an application-----Court is empowered, if any good cause was shown to its satisfaction, to allow and bring such documents on record. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----- -----O. XIII, Rr. 1 & 2-----Production of documents/ witnesses, list for-----Condonation of delay-----Principles-----In the present case, condonation was being sought for the delay only in filing of list of witnesses and list of documents, and the stage had not yet arrived to see that any additional documents were being brought on record-----Order XIII, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C., read in juxtaposition, appeared to be directory and not mandatory so as to non-suit a party by refusing production of documents and adducing its evidence-----Only requirement was that the party seeking permission under said rules had to show 'good cause' (for delay) to the satisfaction of the court-----Defendant, on production of the documents, would be within his own right to question those documents as well as cross examine the witnesses thus produced on behalf of the plaintiff; hence, no prejudice would be caused-----Plaintiff was admittedly seriously ill and had expired thereafter; therefore, the plaintiff was not expected to be vigilant enough to comply with the directions of the court to file list of witnesses and documents within the specified period-----Sufficient cause/'good cause' was available to condone the delay in filing of the lists-----Delay of only six /eight days in filing of the lists ought to have been condoned-----Delay in filing of the lists was condoned-----Applications were allowed in circumstances. Kohinoor…
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