Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XLI, r. 31, O. XIII, r. 4

Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)

Section: 145

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)  O. XLI, r. 31Judgment not complying with requirements of r. 31Cannot be considered bad simply on that accountRelevant points or question considered substantiallyHeld, substantial compliance with provisions of rule.[Judgment]. Rashid Lal Chakraborty and others v. Hingul Khan P L D 1967 Dacca 741 ; Secretary of State v. Rameswarm Devasthanam and others A I R 1934 P C 112 ; Mst. Akhtari Begum v, Allah Jawaya and others A I R 1936 Lah. 543 and Raja Muhammad Afzal Khan v. Ch. Manzoor Elahi P L D 1975 Lah. 1276 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XIII, r. 4Document only marked and not exhibited Whether can be looked into [Quaere]. Hakim Khan v. Aurangzeb P L D 1975 Lah. 1170 ref. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872)  S. 145CrossexaminationWitness denying execution of documentQuestion of confronting with such document, held, does not arise. Khan Mohammad Yusuf Khan Khatak v. S. M. Ayub P L D 1973 S C 160 ref. (d) Gift  Contention that donee having taken possession without permission of donor, therefore, authenticity of gift not effectedSuch contention, held, had no force. Dates of hearing : 19th, 20th, 26thand 27th November, 1979.                                                                                                                        JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, dated 17th July, 1978, by which he dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, First Class, Sargodha, dated 15th April, 1974, dismissing the suit instituted by Mst. Fateh Bibi. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Mst. Fateh Bibi filed a suit to the effect that she was the owner in possession of the suit land which comprised of 7,261 kanals and 16 marlas and that the gift deed dated 5th February, 1979 (Exh. DW 9011) made in favour of…