Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 5013 = 1966 SLD 5013 = 1966 PLD 113
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 55 of 1964, decided on 10th December 1965.  
Presented By: Bashiruddin Ahmad, J
Sh. Karim Bakhsh for Petitioner.   S. Haider Shah for
Respondents.  

  AMIR MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH AND ANOTHER-Petitioners  

VERSUS

  AHWAL HUSSAIN SHAH AND OTHERS ---Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115,18,151

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115-Subordinate Court exercising jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity- High Court in revision has jurisdiction to correct error.   Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. 18 Application seeking permission for production of document-Mere citation of S. 151 in heading of application by mistake-Does not render application incompetent-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151.   Where a plaintiff wanted to produce a certain document at argument stage and for that purpose sought the permission of the Court by making an application under section 151 instead of under Order VII, rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 it was held that merely because the counsel had by mistake mentioned section 151 of the Code in the heading of the application that fact alone did not render the application incompetent.   Sirajuddin v. Muhammad Sharif P L D 1963 Kar. 883 held not applicable.   Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XIII, r. 1 & O. VII, r. 18-Document not produced at first hearing of suit-Court has discretion to receive same at any subsequent stage under O. VII, r.18.   In a case where the plaintiff on inspecting the file before arguments found that the excerpt prepared by the moharrir Patwari was incomplete and applied to the Court for permission to produce in evidence copies of mutation at that stage, it was observed that in the circumstances it could not reasonably be held that the plaintiff did not-exercise due diligence. It was primarily for the moharrir Patwari to refer to those mutations in the excerpt but if he did not do so for reasons best known to him the plaintiff had no option but to seek permission of the Court for producing copies of mutations which they considered necessary for the success of the suit and the Court was justified in permitting production of the documents.   Imambandi v. Mutsaddi 45 I L R 878 ; River Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioners for the Port of Chittagong and another P L D 1961 Dacca 412 ; Sm. Buchibai v. Nagpur University A I R 1946 Nag. 377 ; Mudala Sithanna and others v. Kuppili Lakshminarasimhulu A I R 1940 Mad. 540 ; Kumar Gopika…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register