| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 70 1956 SLD 70 1956 PLD 252 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision Petition No. 40 of 1955 decided on 12th May 1955, under section 115, C. P. C., for revision of the order of Muhammad Dastgir, Civil Judge, Lahore, dated the 4th December 1954
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J
Sheikh Shaukat Ali for Petitioner. Ch. Feroze-ud-Din for
Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 40 of 1955 decided on 12th May 1955, under section 115, C. P. C., for revision of the order of Muhammad Dastgir, Civil Judge, Lahore, dated the 4th December 1954
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J
Sheikh Shaukat Ali for Petitioner. Ch. Feroze-ud-Din for
Respondent
THE Lahore IMPROVEMENT TRUST
VS
MESSRS KHUDA BAKSHMERAJ DIN
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XIIIr.2
(a) Civil Procedure Code (h of 1908), O. XIII r. 2 Interpretation-Scope-Ordinarily documents of undoubted authenticity, should be admitted but Court nevertheless has a discretion-Each case to be decided on its own circumstances Order refusing reception of documents without knowing their nature-Set aside in revision. Ordinarily authentic documents should not be refused though produced at a late stage. The Court has a discretion in the matter. If the reception of the document was to have a serious delaying effect, the Court would be justified, with due regard to the circumstances of a case, in rejecting the document. Authenticity of the document is a very important factor in determining whether it should be admitted in evidence. The only reasonable construction of the words "unless good cause is shown for the lion-production thereof" occurring in rule 2 of O. XIII C. P. C., is to construe them as meaning "unless good cause is shown for reception in evidence in spite of such non-production." The exercise of discretion is governed in each case by the particular circumstances of that case. Statutes are to be interpreted with due regard to their objects. The object of O. XIII, rule 2, was to exclude forged documents and to expedite the trial and not to exclude genuine documents. If there be no doubt as to the authenticity of a document and if at the same time its admission were not in any way to delay the trial of a suit, words of rule 2 should not be allowed to bar its production. Order refusing to admit a document should be passed only after knowing the nature of the document. Where the Court under O. XIII rule 2, C. P. C., refused to admit documents sought to be produced by the petitioner, (Lahore Improvement Trust), from its record, without knowing the nature of the documents, the order of refusal was set aside on that ground alone by the High Court in revision. [Case-law referred to]. Allah Ditta v. A. F. Ahmad P L D 1954 Lah. 608 explained. (b) Interpretation of Statutes-Due regard to be paid to object of statute-Literal meaning of words may be departed from with reference to object. It is permissible to depart from the literal meaning of words of a statute…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492