Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLD 736 = 1992 CLC 204
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1717-D of 1983, heard on 12th November, 1991.
Presented By: Before Gul Zarin Kiani, J
Ch. Muhammad Tufail Basra for Petitioner. Sh. Naveed Shehryar for
Respondents No. 1 and 3. Nemo for other
Respondents.

SHER MUHAMMAD --- Petitioner

VERSUS

GHULAM HUSSAIN and 5 others ---Respondents

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 59 , 78

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 3 , 115

  Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-- ----Arts. 59 & 78---Expert opinion---Objection to mode' of proof --In default of clear objection taken at the appropriate time, defendant was precluded from objecting to the mode of proof regarding admission of the opinion of expert or his examination on commission---Such evidence was rightly read in evidence in Courts below. Chhajju v. Ayyub Ahmed AIR 1915 All. 112; Wadhawa v. Jai Kishan Das AIR 1928 Lah. 427 (1); Ram Autar Shukul v. Baldeo Shukul AIR 1932 Pat. 352; Bhoore Singh and others v. Karan Singh AIR 1935 All. 142; Perumal Mudaliar v. South Indian Railway Co. Ltd. AIR 1937 Mad. 407; Coral Indira Consalves v. Joseph Prabhkar Iswariah AIR 1953 Mad. 858; Parwat Vedu Patil and another v. Sukdev Shivram Patil AIR 1956 Bom. 617; Bommidala Poornaish v. The Union of India AIR 1967 Andh. Pra. 338; Allah Dino and 2 others v. Muhammad Umar and 2 others 1974 SCMR 411; Dil Muhammad and another v. Sain Das and others AIR 1927 Lah. 396 and Karam Din v. Ata Muhammad AIR 1934 Lah. 230 rel. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----OXXIII, R.3 & S. 115---Setting aside of consent decree  ---Revisional  jurisdiction---Object  and scope---Credibility of witnesses---Finding of Courts below---Credibility of witnesses for their being relied   upon could not be questioned and asserted that same was wrongly done---Where Courts below on basis of their analysis of evidence, surrounding circumstances, and probabilities of events, had found that plaintiff in the previous suit as a defendant had not consented to decreeing of that suit against him, and had consequently set aside the consent decree on that score, such view was neither improbable nor implausible . Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court ---Scope --- Revisional jurisdiction was not intended to correct mere errors of fact or law committed by subordinate Courts, but was directed only to errors of jurisdiction. Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913)--- ----S.15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Suit for setting aside of consent decree---Revival of original suit ---Pre-emption suit decreed on basis of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register