Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 895 1992 SLD 895 1992 CLC 1450
Lahore High Court
Write petition N0.7620 of 1990, heard on 2nd June, 1991
MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J
Syed Sharif Hussain Bokhary for Petitioner. Muhammad Hussain Awan for
Respondents Nos.1 to 3. Nemo for
Respondents Nos.4 and 5

Kh. Muhammad Kaleem..

VS

Syed Anwer Hussain and others

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), ,.O.XIII , R.2& O.XVIII, R,2,. Qunun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),Art.78,constitiution of Pakistan(1973), Art. 199,. Inteim order,Validity, Application of pain plaintiff / respondents for having disputed signature on document compared with admitted signature of defendants / petitioners , was allowed by trial court during pendency of suit when affirmative evidence of plaintiff was closed, but evidence in rebuttal was yet to be recorded, order of trail court was upheld by appellate court, Main dispute between parties was with regard to disputed signature on affidavit procedure in evidence by defendant,Court below, in circumstances, rightly opined that comparison of dispute signature by expert would be helpful in arriving at a just conclusion, concurrent orders of court below allowing application of plaintiff/ respondents was just and fair and as such would not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of discretion vested in it under constitution jurisdiction. JUDGMENT This constitution petition is directed against an interim order passed by the civil judge, Gujranwala, on 14th of February, 1990 passed during the penency of a suit, filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos1to 3, for possession of a house situate in Gujranwala against the application filed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 for having the dispute signature on documents Exh.D-2 compared with the admitted signature on Exh.D-1.this order was affirmed in revision by the learned Additional District judge, Gujranwala, on 31st of July, 1990. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition has contended that the impugned order are perverse and arbitrary in nature and as the application was filed after the closure of the evidence by respondents, it could not have been allowed by the courts below. The learned counsel relying upon Saeed Ahmed v. Muhammad…
🔒
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