| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 2195 2022 SLD 2195 2022 MLD 1008 |
C.F.A. No. 38 of 2019, decision Dated: 7th December, 2021.
MALIK INAYAT UR REHMAN AND RAJA SHAKEEL AHMED, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD SHAH JAHAN and 4 others
VS
COLLECTOR/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIAMER and 6 others
Law: Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section: 9,18
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 2
(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--- ----Ss.9, 18---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XIII, R.2---Production of document at belated stage---Sufficient cause---Reference was filed by petitioners against award passed by the Collector Land Acquisition---Application for production of private documents (agreements and award) was filed by petitioners during pendency of the said reference---Referee/District Judge partially dismissed the said application---Appellant contended that act of dismissal would adversely affect to reach at the right conclusion/decision of Court; that documents (two separate agreement and one arbitration award) had been accepted/admitted by the parties to the agreement and had also no objection by either party; and that the said documents were termed as admitted documents having relevance with the reference petition---Validity---Alleged documents were private documents, hence it could safely be inferred that the same were in possession of the appellant at the time of filing the reference petition had not averred in reference petition that the alleged documents were not in their possession and they would soon after recovery submit the same before the Trial Court---Neither any good reason nor sufficient cause was mentioned in the application of appellants---Stamp papers were issued in different dates---Witnesses shown in the agreement had not put their signatures on the said agreement---Documents were result of afterthought and appellants had prepared the same just to strengthen their cause---Said documents were not public documents hence no presumption of truth was attached thereto---Impugned order was not an appealable order---Although the impugned order could be assailed through revision petition but the appellants failed to submit the relevant documents along with the appeal---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XIII, R.1---Non-compliance of the mandatory provision---Sufficient/good cause---Scope---Rule 1 of O.XIII of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is mandatory---Parties/pleaders shall produce, at first hearing of suit, all documentary evidence of every description in their possession/power, on…
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