Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLD 475 = 1990 MLD 355
Peshawar High Court
Regular First Appeal No. 2 of 1986, decided on 2nd October, 1989.
Presented By: Before Fakhre Alam C.J. and Wali Muhammad Khan, J
Khalid Rehman for Appellants. Muhammad Saeed Badshah for
Respondents.

HABIBULLAH KHAN and others--Appellants

VERSUS

SAADAT KHAN and others--Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 5

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---OXIV, R.5---Omission to frame or wrongly framing of issue not causing prejudice to any party in proceeding---Effect---Although framing of issues was the duty of Court but counsel representing the parties were expected to bring to the notice of the Court any omission or incorrectness of any issues framed by the Court---Failure of counsel to point out error at the proper time, would disentitle him to raise such point for the first time at appellate stage particularly when he could not show any prejudice having been caused to his client in the discharge of onus placed upon him. AIR 1936 Lah. 114; AIR 1931 Cal. 189; 1937 PC 101; AIR 1936 Mad. 808; AIR 1936 Oudh 340; AIR 1933 Bom. 126; AIR 1931 Oudh 177; 1980 SCMR 340; PLD 1976 SC 767; PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 62; PLD 1979 SC 53; PLD 1969 SC 261; AIR 1937 P.C. 201; PLD 1965 Ldh. 482; PLD 1976 SC 767; AIR 1943 Cal. 76; AIR 1937 Sindh 126; AIR 11,40 Lah. 245; 1989 SCMR 220, AIR 1931; Cal. 120 and 4:3; AIR 1931 All. 307; PLD 1969 Pesh. 85 and PLD 1971 SC 82 ref. Appeal (Civil)--- --- Failure of counsel to point out-error in the framing of the issue at the proper time would disentitle him to raise such objection for the first time at appellate stage, particularly when, he could not show any prejudice having been caused to his client in the discharge of onus placed upon him. The Province of East Pakistan v. Major Nawab Khawaja Hassan Askary and others and Maulvi Khurram Khan Parini v. The Province of East Pakistan, PLD 1971 SC 82 ref. Evidence Act (I of 1872)-- ---S.60 read with Ss. 32 & 50---Oral evidence---Exceptions to hearsay evidence. Section 60 of the Evidence Act provides that oral evidence must be direct and that hearsay evidence is not admissible. However, the provisions of section 32 and section 50 are exceptions to the said general rule. According to section 32, statement, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register