 |
| Permission to submit documents after the time |
How to file documents after evidence, High Court AJ&K Upholds Production of Public Documents at Belated Stage – 2025 CLC 223
ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ: بعد از وقت دستاویزات کی پیشکش جائز قرار
مقدمے کا پس منظر:
محمد نجیب نے ہائی کورٹ میں writ petition دائر کی، جس میں انہوں نے ڈسٹرکٹ جج میرپور اور دیگر کے فیصلے کو چیلنج کیا۔ معاملہ اس بات کا تھا کہ ایک فریق نے مقدمے کے دوران دستاویزات بعد از وقت پیش کرنے کی اجازت طلب کی تھی۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے یہ اجازت دی اور ڈسٹرکٹ کورٹ نے اسے برقرار رکھا۔ محمد نجیب نے اسے ہائی کورٹ میں چیلنج کیا۔
---
قانونی نکات:
1. بعد از وقت دستاویزات (Belated Documents):
ہائی کورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ اگر دستاویزات پبلک ریکارڈ کی ہوں، اصلیت میں کوئی شک نہ ہو اور مقدمے کے منصفانہ فیصلہ کے لیے ضروری ہوں، تو عدالت کو انہیں قبول کرنے میں صوابدید استعمال کرنی چاہیے۔
2. جوابی دستاویزات (Rebuttal Evidence):
جب کسی فریق نے دستاویزات پیش کی ہوں، تو دوسری پارٹی کو وہ دستاویزات پیش کرنے کی اجازت دینا جائز ہے تاکہ پہلی فریق کے مواد کا مقابلہ کیا جا سکے۔
3. قانونی حوالہ جات:
Civil Procedure Code, O. XLI, R. 27 & O. XIII, Rr. 1, 2: بعد از وقت دستاویزات پیش کرنے کے لیے اچھی وجہ (good cause) ضروری ہے، لیکن پبلک دستاویزات کی صورت میں عدالت صوابدید سے اجازت دے سکتی ہے۔
AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, Art. 44: writ petition صرف اس وقت قابل قبول ہے جب عدالت کا حکم اختیار سے باہر یا قانون کی خلاف ورزی پر مبنی ہو۔
---
ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ:
ہائی کورٹ نے ٹرائل اور ڈسٹرکٹ کورٹ کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا۔
عدالت نے کہا کہ کوئی قانونی کمی یا اختیار کی خلاف ورزی نہیں ہوئی۔
writ petitions مسترد کر دی گئیں۔
---
خلاصہ:
> اگر دستاویزات پبلک ہیں اور مقدمے کے منصفانہ فیصلہ کے لیے ضروری ہیں، تو عدالت انہیں بعد میں قبول کر سکتی ہے۔ کسی فریق کو پہلی فریق کی دستاویزات کا مقابلہ کرنے کے لیے جوابی دستاویزات پیش کرنے کی اجازت دینا جائز ہے۔ ہائی کورٹ نے اس فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا اور کسی صوابدید کی مداخلت کی ضرورت نہیں سمجھی۔
Must read judgement
2025 C L C 223
[High Court (AJ&K)]
Before Chaudhary Khalid Rasheed, J
MUHAMMAD NAJEEB ---Petitioner
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE MIRPUR, AZAD KASHMIR and others ---Respondents
Write Petitions Nos. 597 and 598 of 2019, decided on 18th October, 2024.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. XLI, R. 27---Production of documents at belated stage---Public documents---Trial Court allowed the party to produce documents at later stage of proceedings, which order was maintained by the District Court---Validity---If the documents intended to be produced are part of public record; have come from proper custody; there authenticity is beyond doubt, then the Court should exercise its discretion accepting the documents and such like documents shall not ordinarily be refused---In the present case, admittedly, the documents sought to be produced were public documents and were necessary for correct decision of the case because, undeniably, the petitioner produced some documents and in order to rebut the same the documents allowed by the Courts below to the respondents were necessary to be produced---No legal infirmity or lack of jurisdiction in the impugned orders was noticed---Documents allowed to be produced were necessary for just decision of the case Impugned orders required no indulgence by the High Court----Writ petitions were dismissed , in circumstances .
2009 CLC 1320 ref.
(b) Civil Procedure Code ( V of 1908)---
----O. XLI, R. 27 & O. XIII, Rr. 1, 2---Production of documents at belated stage---Public good cause---Trial Court allowed the party to produce documents at later stage of proceedings, which order was maintained by the District Court---Validity---Though the respondents-applicants had only mentioned that they might be allowed to produce documentary evidence for the sake of justice in their application, which could not be termed as good cause, however, the petitioner had not denied that the same were to be produced in order to rebut the documents produced by him( petitioner)---Hence, when the petitioner had been allowed to produce documents at belated stage, allowing the respondents to produce documents at later stage in order to rebut those documents produced by petitioner was quite justified---No legal infirmity or lack of jurisdiction in the impugned orders was noticed---Documents allowed to be produced were necessary for just decision of the case---Impugned orders required no indulgence by the High Court---Writ petition was dismissed , in circumstances.
(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. XLI, R. 27 & O. XIII, Rr. 1, 2---Production of documents at belated stage---Public documents---Good cause---Trial Court allowed the party to produce documents at later stage of proceedings, which order was maintained by the District Court---Contention of the petitioner was that it was incumbent upon a party to produce a document at the first hearing of the suit and if a party failed to do the needful no documentary evidence which was in possession or power of a party was admissible unless and until sufficient cause was shown for its non-production at first hearing---Validity---Under O. XIII R. 2, C.P.C., for producing documents at belated stage, the party has to show good cause, but when the documents sought to be produced are public documents and their authenticity is not doubtful then the provisions of law have to be interpreted liberally and the discretion should be exercised by allowing the party to produce documents at later stage---No legal infirmity or lack of jurisdiction in the impugned orders was noticed---Documents allowed to be produced were necessary for just decision of the case---Impugned orders required no indulgence by the High Court----Writ petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.
2009 CLC 1320 ref.
(d) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)---
----Art. 44---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, R.27---Production of documents at belated stage---Writ petition---Maintainability---Trial Court allowed the party to produce documents at later stage of proceedings, which order was maintained by the District Court---Validity---A writ petition can be filed where the orders passed by the Courts below are lacking jurisdictional competence or have been passed in derogation of law but when the Trial Court has exercised discretion in a judicious manner and the order of the Trial Court is maintained in revision petition ,then the same cannot be assailed in writ jurisdiction---No legal infirmity or lack of jurisdiction in the impugned orders was noticed---Documents allowed to be produced were necessary for just decision of the case---Impugned orders required no indulgence by the High Court----Writ petitions were dismissed , in circumstances .
Muhammad Farooq Minhas for Petitioner.
Muhammad Siddique Ch. for private Respondents.
No comments:
Post a Comment