| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1994 SLG 644 1994 SLD 644 1994 SCMR 669 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 435 of 1993. decided on 27-11-1993
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR AND SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Petition No. 435 of 1993. decided on 27-11-1993
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR AND SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
BADARUL HASSAN NIZAMI and 4 others
MUHAMMAD SULTAN KHAN through Legal Heirs
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--O.XLI, R. 25---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)---Additional issues were framed in appeal and case was remanded to Trial Court for fresh trial---High Court in revision set aside order of remand and additional issues and sent back case to First Appellate Court for decision afresh in accordance with law---Validity---High Court, while setting aside order of remand and additional issues had found that controversy sought to be raised in additional issues framed by First Appellate Court was already covered by issues framed in suit by Trial Court and if there was some deficiency in evidence, proper course for parties was to apply for production of additional evidence before First Appellate Court---High Court's view had taken full care of the apprehension expressed by petitioner that unless issues were amended/added as directed by First Appellate Court, he could not lead further evidence in the case---If petitioners felt that some more relevant evidence had to be produced they would be free to apply to Appellate Court in terms of High Court's order, for production of additional evidence which request would be considered by First Appellate Court in accordance with law---No case for interference with the order of High Court having been made out leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. JUDGMENT SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.-The Petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 28-6-1993 whereby Civil Revision Application No.413-D of 1986 filed by the respondent was allowed and the case was sent back to the first appellate Court for decision according to law. The respondent instituted a suit against the petitioner seeking relief of permanent injunction alleging that he is owner in possession of Property No. 2794-2795 situated in Gali Gain Mandir, Saddar Bazar, Rawalpindi, which was transferred to him by Settlement Department. It was alleged that the petitioners' predecessor was transferred a portion of the said property bearing No. 2787 to 2790. That the petitioners have started using entrance which is exclusively meant for the premises inβ¦
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