Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 1217 1993 SLD 1217 1993 PLD 774
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 3534 of 1992, heard on 4th May, 1993
ZIA MEHMOOD MUZA, J
Muhammad Asghar Chaudhry for Petitioner. Ch. Bashir Ahmad for
Respondents Nos.1 to 3

FEROZE DIN er

VS

MUHAMMAD AMIN and 4 others--Respondents

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ---- S. 115 & OXVI, R.1(2) --- Expression "case decided" in S.115, CJ?. C.--­ Connotation --- Order allowing or declining to allow production of evidence whether amounts to *case decided" within meaning of S.115, Civil Procedure Code---Provision of S.115, Civil Procedure Code, will be attracted where a Court subordinate to High Court has given a decision in respect of any state of facts after judicially considering the same even though such decision does not dispose of the whole matter or suit pending before subordinate Court---Order of Trial Court rejecting application of defendant for sending documents mentioned therein to Forensic Laboratory for comparison of thumb ­impression thereon and for summoning Expert from Finger Print Bureau for evidence amounted to "case decided" within meaning of S.115, Civil Procedure Code and was, thus, amenable to correction in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction if it otherwise fell within ambit of any of the clauses of g.115, C.P.C.---Revisional Court's order that allowing or declining to allow production of evidence did not amount to "case decided" within the contemplation of S.115, C.P.C. was set aside and revision was ordered to be decided afresh in accordance with law. S. War Ahmad v. Abdul Khaliq PLD 1964 Kar. 149 and Bashir Ahmad v. Qaisar Ali PLD 1973 SC 507 rel. Rahman Dad v. Sajawal Khan 1976 SCMR 350; Zafar lqbal v. Bashir Ahmad Khan PLD 1987 Lah. 650; Nawabzada Malik Habibullah Khan v. The Pak. Cement Industries Ltd. and others 1969 SCMR 965 and Nawabzada Malik Habibullah v. The Pak. Cement Industries Limited and others 1968 SCMR 864 ref. JUDGMENT Facts necessary for the disposal of this Constitutional petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner, a defendant in a pending suit, filed an application under Order XVI, rule 1(2) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the trial Court praying that two mortgage deeds executed by Taj Din in his favour (execution whereof was admitted by the plaintiffs) and a sale-deed dated 6-2-1976 which, too, was allegedly executed by Taj Din, but execution whereof was denied by the plaintiffs "be sent to Forensic…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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