| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1988 SLG 266 1988 SLD 266 1988 PLD 35 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.42 of 1984, decision dated: 24-01-1988.
SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ABDUL MAJEED MALLICK, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No.42 of 1984, decision dated: 24-01-1988.
SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ABDUL MAJEED MALLICK, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Mst. MANZOOR FATIMA and 15 others
VS
MAZHAR HUSSAIN SHAH and 2 others Basharat Ahmed Sheikh for . Agha Ashiq Hussain .
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-----O. XIII, R.4--Scope and application--Duty of Court and parties to the litigation stated. Order XIII, rule 4 postulates that every document admitted in evidence shall be endorsed and it shall contain-- (i) title of the suit; (ii) name of person producing document; (iii) date on which it is produced; (iv) statement of its having been so admitted; and (v) shall be signed or initialled by the Judge. The procedure prescribed under the rule provides a safeguard against the replacement, addition and multiplication of documents produced by parties, in judicial proceedings. It is for this reason that law has enjoined upon the Court to ensure that documents are endorsed containing the title of the suit, name of the party or person producing it, including the date and signature of the Judge. Primarily it is the duty of the Court to follow the rule in admitting a document in evidence. The parties have obligation to be vigilant so that their documents are exhibited in evidence in compliance with the provisions of law. Adherence to the prescribed procedure is always insisted upon, otherwise, its very object is defeated. But at the same time the rule is not deemed inflexible. Situations where procedure prescribed by Order XIII, Rule 4 was not followed arose very frequently. The Courts settled the controversies at rest, in appropriate manner, keeping in view the facts of each case. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- ---O. XIII, R.4--When the Court is satisfied that document admitted in evidence, in derogation of the procedure, is genuine or admitted by opposite-party and it was admitted in evidence without objection, it is permissible to read it into evidence. Sadik Hussain Khan v. Hashim Ali Khan A I R 1916 P.C. 27; Duli Chand Maidhan v. Panthi and another 38 P L R 231 and Maya Dhari v. Chuni Lal Panna Lal A I R 1931 Lah. 119 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ---O. XIII, R.4--When documents were admitted in evidence in absence of any objection from opposite-party, failure of opposite-party to object to the admission of documents in evidences, in Trial Court, estops him from raising an objection against their admission in…
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