Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Secondary evidence---Leading of ---Entitlement---Admissibility-- Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---Primary evidence being not available, petitioner filed application for leading secondary evidence which application was dismissed by Courts below---Petitioner having been deprived of opportunity to lead secondary evidence on erroneous considerations of law as well as of facts, High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside order of Courts below and petitioner was held entitled to lead secondary evidence and also to get examined those witnesses who were already mentioned in the list of witnesses.--[Evidence]. Ajmal Kamal Mirza for Petitioner. Syed Misbahul Hassan Abidi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th May, 1996. JUDGMENT Respondent Muhammad Sharif and Mst. Ghulab Begum filed a suit for declaration that the suit land (evacuee property) belonged to them and the present petitioner had no connection whatsoever with that. The suit was resisted, issues were framed and the plaintiffs led their evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an   application for leading secondary evidence as primary evidence was not available. Learned Civil Judge by order dated 9-1-1990 dismissed the application and the revision filed by them also failed and dismissed by order dated 18-6-1990. The present petition was filed to assail the legality and correctness of the aforementioned orders 8-1-1991 and learned counsel for the parties have been heard in the matter today. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application dated 25-7-1989 was dismissed on erroneous considerations by the learned lower Courts and the main reason which found favour with the learned lower Courts was that the petitioner had filed an application on the subject earlier which was dismissed on 31-7-1988, and as such a second application on the subject was not maintainable but this view of the learned lower Courts was contrary to record. It was submitted that the petitioner submitted an application for amendment of the list of witnesses already submitted by her and sought name of Accountant Treasury…