| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1996 SLG 196 1996 SLD 196 1996 SCMR 1057 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 366 of 1992, decision dated: 2-12-1993. On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated 18-2-1992 passed in Civil R.A. No.241/90
AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ
Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Talmiz Burni, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A.I. Qarni; Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 366 of 1992, decision dated: 2-12-1993. On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated 18-2-1992 passed in Civil R.A. No.241/90
AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ
Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Talmiz Burni, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A.I. Qarni; Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents
Mst. BILQUIS FATIMA and 3 others
VS
NASIM AHSAN and 2 others1-
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.XVII, R. 13---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to examine, whether High Court was right in confining itself to consideration of order by which application of defendants in suit was dismissed not allowing them opportunity to cross-examine plaintiffs and not adverting to merits of decree which were also challenged in revision and whether Trial Court should have taken lenient view in allowing prayer of defendants in suit to lead their evidence after compensating other party by awarding appropriate costs against any lapse or negligence on the part of defendants in suit for not being vigilant. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVI, R. 3---Suit for possession in terms of S. 9, Specific Relief Act, 1877---Trial Court closing side of defendants for non-production of evidence and decreeing suit on the same date after evidence of plaintiff was recorded---Plaintiffs were distant relatives of deceased owner while defendants were his wife and children---Plaintiff's plea of dispossession should have been decided by Trial Court on merits in peculiar circumstances of case and suit should not have been decreed against defendants on technical ground after denying them opportunity of cross-examination of plaintiffs and pot allowing them to produce evidence---Reasons assigned by Trial Court for dismissing application filed by defendants in suit for re-opening their side did not sound justifiable for the reason that time started running against defendants from 20-8-1989 when their side was closed and on next date of hearing they filed undertaking of their counsel to file power and application for re-opening their side was filed on 9-10-1989 which should not have been dismissed as time-barred in the chequered background of case, particularly when defendant was widow and mother of small children and had inherited property of deceased owner after his death---No order was passed depriving specifically defendants from cross-examining plaintiffs but specific order was passed closing their side of evidence---Trial Court should have taken lenient view…
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