| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 3194 2007 SLD 3194 2007 PLJ 70 |
Peshawar High Court
C.R. No. 1314 of 2006, decided on 8.11.2006.
TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, J.
Mr. Walayat Khan Khattak, Advocate for Petitioner
C.R. No. 1314 of 2006, decided on 8.11.2006.
TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, J.
Mr. Walayat Khan Khattak, Advocate for Petitioner
SHAH MULK
VS
Mst. HUSSAN PARI and another--Respondents
Law:
Section:
(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----S. 115--Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, (10 of 1984), Arts. 72 & 80--Documentary evidence--Proof of--Suit of the petitioner was dismissed by Courts below--Misreading and non-reading of evidence--Marginal witnesses and scribe could not be produced being dead but no such plea took in trial Court nor in appellate Court--Petitioner had to prove the documents relied upon by him and who had to examine attesting witnesses and scribe of the same, if all of them were dead, the fact would have been pleaded before the trial Court--Steps would have been taken to adduce secondary evidence with the leave of the Court--Held: No objection was raised to the production of documents would not render the documents as proved. [P. 72] A Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-- ----Art. 129(g)--Withholding best evidence, presumption attached--Party withholding best evidence, the presumption would be that if such witnesses were produced their deposition must have been against the one who withheld them. [P. 72] B 2005 SCMR 152, 2002 SCMR 235 and PLD 2003 Peshawar 189, ref. Order Petitioner/plaintiff filed suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Nowshera seeking declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of deeds dated 26.3.1952 and 14.8.1952 and that respondents have nothing to do with the said property. Perpetual injunction restraining the respondents/defendants to interfering into the property was also sought. The said suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants by filing written statement. The learned trial Court after framing issues recording pro and contra evidence of the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 14.2.2006. 2. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Nowshera but his appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 14.5.2006. Being not contented with the judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the petitioner has filed revision petition in hand. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned trial Court had failed to resolve Issues No. 2 and…
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