Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 2237 2019 SLD 2237 2019 PLJ 64
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 19044 of 2018, decision & hearing Dated: 24.12.2018.
MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Atif Mushtaq Bhutta, Advocate

MST. SALMA KAUSAR

VS

ANAYAT ALI, ETC.

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.41,R.27

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Application for producing of additional evidence--Dismissed--Comparison of thumb impressions--Exercise of discretion--Pendency of appeal--Challenge to--Appellate Court while adjudicating upon application for permission to lead additional evidence has observed that petitioner neither averred in her written statement for comparison of thumb-impression of plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 with thumb-impression over impugned mutation nor during trial she made any request--Allowing or disallowing said application was discretionary with appellate Court and discretion exercised by Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be called in question at this stage in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court when main appeal is still pending before said Court--Petitioner must wait for decision of final appeal before calling in question order passed by appellate Court refusing to allow additional evidence along with any final challengeable passed against petitioner--Petition was dismissed. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, JUSTICE---.--- Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Muzaffargarh, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence by referring the matter to expert for comparison of thumb impression of Respondent No. 1 with the ones available on original Mutation No. 648 dated 16.06.2005 has been declined. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the afore-referred additional evidence relating to comparison of thumb impression was required for just decision of the case and the said application has not rightly been refused. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. The petitioner has filed the application for additional evidence seeking comparison of thumb impressions of the Respondent No. 1 with thumb impressions available on Mutation No. 648 for the first time before the appellate Court, which has been declined by the said Court. The Order LI Rule 27 of the C.P.C…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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