Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 1576 2022 SLD 1576 2022 PLJ 416

W.P. No. 17958 of 2019, decided on 1.2.2021.
MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, J.
Malik M. Tariq Nonari, Advocate for Petitioner. Malik Aftab Abbas Khan, Advocate for
Respondents.

ARSHAD ALI QADRI

VS

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHANEWAL and others

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----S. 12--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Suit for specific performance--Application for summon as witnesses in rebuttal of evidence by respondent--Allowed--concurrent findings--Matter was remanded--Scope of--Direction to recording of cross-examination and producing of evidence--Name of witness was not mentioned in list of witnesses--Challenge to--Scope of--Judgment passed by ADJ whereby matter was remanded back to Trial Court shows that while setting aside impugned and decree matter was remanded to Trial Court with a direction to allow cross examination of PWs-1 to 3 recorded and also allowed parties to produce evidence in rebuttal in accordance with law and decide same afresh--It cannot be concluded that allowing of application to produce said Saeed Anjum is beyond scope of remand order--Merely because name of said witness was not mentioned in list of witnesses, does not bar Courts from passing an order for summoning of witness for just decision of matter as many question have been raised relating to register of deed writer--Impugned order and passed by both Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional defect for High Court to interfere in same in its constitutional jurisdiction, which order and even otherwise being well warranted and based on sound reasoning are up-held--Petition dismissed. ORDER Through this constitutional petition the petitioner has called in question order and judgment dated 14.02.2019 , 02.08.2019 respectively passed by learned Courts below whereby application filed by Respondent No. 3 to summon one Saeed Anjum as witness in rebuttal of evidence, has been concurrently allowed. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance of remand order dated 21.03.2014, Respondent No. 3 who was defendant in suit could only lead his evidence while appearing as defendant but not in rebuttal after the evidence of the petitioner…
🔒
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