| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLG 3134 = 1980 SLD 3134 = 1980 PLD 228 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 162 of 1972, decided on 2nd September 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 8th March 1972, in R. S. A. No. 89 of 1971).
Presented By: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Inayat Hussain, AdvocateonRecord for Appellant. A. R. Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim AdvocateonRecord for
Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 162 of 1972, decided on 2nd September 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 8th March 1972, in R. S. A. No. 89 of 1971).
Presented By: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Inayat Hussain, AdvocateonRecord for Appellant. A. R. Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim AdvocateonRecord for
Respondents.
MAJOR SHER AFZAL-Appellant
VERSUS
SHAMIM FIRDAUS AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 185(3)
Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)
Section: 45, 114
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 42
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 107(1)(a)
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3) Leave to appeal proceedingsFindings of fact, interference withPoints raised insignificant and pertaining to minor and minute details, not expected to be provided in exactitude by witnesses after passage of along timePoints also not of such nature on which findings of fact recorded after due care and appreciation of evidence could be set asideDirect evidence, held, could not be rejected on such flimsy points especially when such evidence believed by all three Courts below for very solid reasons.[EvideneeFinding of fact]. Abdul Majid and others v. Khalil Ahmad P L D 1955 F C 38 and Mst. Fatima v. Khuda Bakhsh P L D 1959 Lah. 826 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3)Leave to appeal proceedingsNo misreading or omission of any record pointed outView taken by Courts below, held, could not be disturbed in appeal by Supreme Court when same supported by cogent reasons and careful analysis of relevant material. Khan Muhammad Yusuf Khan Khattak v. M. M. Ayub and 2 others P L D 1973 S C 160 ref. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) S. 45 Expert opinionHandwriting ExpertConflicting opinions One Handwriting Expert stating impugned thumbimpressions to be that of one and same person while another stating same to be blurred hence not decipherableOpinion of either expert, in circumstances, held, could not be relied upon and case could safely be decided with reference to direct evidence.[Expert evidence]. (d) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) a. S. 42 Declaratory suitPlaint stating plaintiff No. 1 having been performing .her marital obligations towards defendant for 3 years, that some two years ago defendant developed illicit relations with a woman but despite protest did not give up such activities and some 3 months ago married such woman but to escape from rigours of Family Laws declared himself a bachelor and started disowning marital status of plaintiff No. 1 with him and parentage of plaintiff No. 2 born out of lawful wedlock of plaintiff No. 1 with defendantKabinnama filed by plaintiff's wife duly proved to have been executed and signed by defendant and his brother, father of bride, and other witnessesNothing in…