Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 2015 2006 SLD 2015 2006 CLC 440
Sindh High Court
Civil Suit No.1062 of 1996, decision dated: 9-12-2005.
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, 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

FARRUKH SAEED KHAN--Plaintiff

VS

ANIS-UR-REHMAN BHATTI--Defendant

Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 42 & 54---Defamation---Suit for declaration, injunction and damages---Contention of the defendant was that suit was not maintainable as the prayer clause in the plaint was in the nature of negative declaration---Validity---Prayer clause in the plaint contained other prayers also and if one prayer was not admissible the suit, as a whole could not be dismissed---Prayer clause, which was an independent clause and subject to its proof, could be granted independent of the declaration. Abdur Rehman Mobashir and 3 others v. Syed Amir Ali Shah Bukhari and 4 others PLD 1978 Lah. 113 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---O. VI, Rr.1 & 2---Pleadings---Party, who had filed written statement and refused to appear in the witness-box, the contents of his written statement ought to be ignored---Written statement filed by the party, who failed to appear in the witness-box is of no value. Messrs Shalimar Ltd. Karachi v. Raisuddin Siddiqui and 3 others 1979 CLC 338; Messrs Society Oil Dealers, Karachi v. District Judge, Karachi and another 2003 MLD 2005; Saeedur Rehman and others v. Assistant Commissioner/Collector Acquisition, Swabi 2004 CLC 378 and State Life Insurance Corporation v. Mamoor Khan 1993 CLC 790 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VI, Rr.1 & 2---Allegation of embezzlement against defendant in the plaint---Burden of proof---Scope---Plaintiff could produce evidence in the shape of documents to show the embezzlement etc.---Where the pleadings and the evidence were silent with regard to action instituted against the defendant for causing embezzlement, burden to prove the issue of embezzlement would be on the plaintiff---If the plaintiff failed to prove the issue, the same would be decided in negative---Defendant, in the present case, though had not produced any evidence in that regard but the matter was to be decided on the strength of the case of the plaintiff and not on the basis of the weakness of defendant. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VI, Rr.1 & 2---Defendant though had filed written statement, but neither cross-examined the plaintiff and his witness nor…
πŸ”’
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