Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 474 1993 SLD 474 1993 CLC 257
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 611/D of 1990, heard on 11th November, 1992.
MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J

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

NAZIR AHMAD

VS

MUHAMMAD RAFIQ

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 79,17,74,0.1,R.13

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 79 & 17---Agreement to sell---Proof and admissibility---Scribe of document when a competent witness---Evidence of one marginal witness and scribe---Evidentiary value of---Agreement to sell was proved through the statement of one marginal witness and scribe of the document in question--­Ordinarily a scribe who had merely scribed a document and handed it over to parties for their signatures and the signatures of attesting witnesses would not become competent attesting witness, if such document was executed elsewhere in his .absence---Where, however, document in question, was actually executed in presence of scribe and parties and attesting witnesses had signed the same in his presence, he (scribe) could be treated as attesting witness although he had not signed the document in that capacity. Muhammad Anwar v. Haji Muhammad Ismail etc. 1992 MLD 860; Sristidhar Ghose v. Rakhyakali Dasti AIR 1922 Cal. 168; Thakurdas and another v. Topandas and others AIR 1929 Sindh 217 and Ghanshamsingh Tirathsing and another v. Mahomed Yacoob AIR 1933 Sindh 257 ref. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 74---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Secondary evidence, production of----Validity---Plea not taken before lower forums raised in revision---Admissibility---Plaintiff had placed original document on record of Trial Court---Record of Court was burnt and file was reconstructed in pursuance of order passed by High Court---No objection was raised at the time of reconstruction of file regarding genuineness of agreement to sell--­Defendant did not object to the admissibility of photocopy of document in question, before Appellate Court---Such point was neither embodied in the memo. of appeal nor actually raised before Appellate Court and for that reason was not dealt with in the impugned of that Court--­Such point could not be allowed to be raised for the first time at revisional stage. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revision---Point not raised before lower Courts i.e. either before trial Court or in appeal, could not be allowed to be raised for the first time at revisional stage. (d) Civil…
🔒
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