| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 1838 2020 SLD 1838 2020 MLD 1327 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1130 of 2019, decision Dated: 08-10-2019
MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, JUSTICE
Malik Muhammad Ibrahim for Petitioners.
Civil Revision No. 1130 of 2019, decision Dated: 08-10-2019
MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, JUSTICE
Malik Muhammad Ibrahim for Petitioners.
MUHAMMAD BILAL AND OTHERS
VS
MST. BHIRANWAN BIBI
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 27
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XLI, R. 27---Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court---Interim order---Scopes, during pendency of their appeal, filed an application before the appellate court for comparison of the thumb impression of respondent with the one available on the disputed mutation, which application was dismissed---Validitys during the proceedings of the suit had not raised the plea for verification of thumb impression of the respondent---Order declining the petitioners' plea was purely within the discretion of the appellate court and exercise of jurisdiction by appellate court could not be interfered with by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, especially when the final order was yet to be passeds had to wait for the final outcome of the matter before calling said order into question---Revision petition was dismissed. ORDER MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, JUSTICE:---.--- Through this Civil Revision the petitioners have called in question order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in appeal filed by them, whereby their application for seeking comparison of thumb impression of the respondent-Mst. Bhirawan Bibi available on the mutation No. 191 dated 06.01.1998 has been declined. The claim of the petitioners was that comparison of such thumb impression on the said mutation was required to facilitate the Court to reach a just conclusion in matter in dispute as there is no possibility of change of the said thumb impression. Consequently prays that by setting aside the impugned order application for verification of thumb impression be allowed. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. In a suit for declaration filed by Mst. Bhirawan Bibi-respondent, mutation dated 06.01.1998 was assailed by her alleging therein that she has neither sold the suit land to the petitioners nor received any consideration in lieu thereof as well and the aforesaid mutation was a result of fraud. In the said suit both the parties contested the suit and led their respective evidence which suit was decreed in favour of the respondent on 04.03.2019 by the learned Trial Court. During the proceedings of the said suit the present petitioners…
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