Documents exhibit under the statement of lawyer is illegal.
 |
| Documents exhibit under the statement of lawyer is illegal |
دستاویزات کی قانونی حیثیت
مقدمے کا تعارف
مقدمے کا پس منظر
بنیادی قانونی سوال
شہادت سے متعلق قانونی اصول
جرح کے حق کی اہمیت
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ جرح کا حق منصفانہ ٹرائل کا بنیادی جزو ہے۔ اگر کسی فریق کو دستاویز کی صداقت کو چیلنج کرنے کا موقع نہ دیا جائے تو ایسا ثبوت قانونی حیثیت نہیں رکھتا۔ اسی بنیاد پر ٹرائل کورٹ کی کارروائی کو سنگین قانونی خامی قرار دیا گیا۔
شواہد کی غلط تشریح اور عدم مطالعہ
نظرثانی اختیار کی حدود اور استعمال
ہائی کورٹ کا حتمی فیصلہ
قانونی اہمیت
2. شواہد کی غلط تشریح:
3. نچلی عدالتوں کی غلطی:
4. سی پی سی (سیکشن 115):
5. ہائی کورٹ کا کردار:
6. قانونی اصول کی وضاحت:
نتیجہ:
Must read judgement
2024 C L C 1503
[Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]
Before Mirza Viqas Rauf, J
Khawaja JAVED MEHMOOD----Petitioner
Versus
PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION through Regional Director Rawalpindi and 2 others----Respondents
Civil Revision No.233-D of 2022, heard on 21st March, 2024.
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Arts. 72 & 78---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Documentary evidence---Document tendered in evidence through statement of counsel---Legality---Misreading and non-reading of evidence---Effect---Suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court on the basis of two documents produced by respondent / defendant which documents were never confronted to petitioner / plaintiff and the same were made part of record through statement of counsel---Validity---Disputed documents cannot be tendered in evidence through statement of counsel of the party producing the document---Reason for such restriction is that through such procedure opposing party becomes deprived to challenge authenticity of such document by way of cross-examination---Revisional jurisdiction is hedged in S.115, C.P.C. and though ordinarily concurrent findings of facts are not disturbed but such findings are neither sacrosanct nor it is an inflexible rule that despite observing material flaws, revisional court has to abdicate to exercise its jurisdiction---Judgments passed by two Courts below were not based on proper appraisal of evidence---Trial Court while dismissing suit of petitioner / plaintiff grossly misread the evidence---Lower Appellate Court while upholding judgment and decree of Trial Court committed material irregularity---High Court under S.115, C.P.C. was obliged and fully competent to correct such error in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction---Once it was established on record that concurrent findings were fraught with legal infirmities, it had become bounden duty of court exercising revisional powers to curb and stifle such illegalities and material irregularities---High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and suit was decreed in favour of petitioner / plaintiff---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others PLD 2021 SC 715; Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Misri Khan PLD 2020 SC 749; National Command Authority through D.G. SPD, Rawalpindi and others v. Zahoor Azam and others 2024 CLC 1; Khan Muhammad Yusuf Khan Khattak v. S. M. Ayub and 2 others PLD 1973 SC 160; Malik Muhammad Khaqan v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi (KPT) and another 2008 SCMR 428 and Imam Din and 4 others v. Bashir Ahmed and 10 others PLD 2005 SC 418 rel.
Muhammad Taimur Malik for Petitioner.
Waqar ul Haq Sheikh for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.