Skip to main content

2005 S C M R 1444

Application for production of additional evidence --- Decision of such application before final judgment --- Trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff --- During the pendency of an appeal before Appellate Court, defendant filed an application for producing additional evidence --- Appellate Court instead of deciding the application separately dismissed the whole appeal --- High Court while deciding second appeal, remanded the matter to Appellate court for deciding the appeal afresh on the ground that before deciding the appeal finally, Appellate Court should have decided the application --- Validity --- View expressed by High Court was incorrect --- Court, in every case was not supposed to decide the application for permission to adduce additional evidence prior to the decision of the main appeal through separate orders and could give a composite judgement --- No legal justification existed for the remand of appeal to Appellate court as the Court had given reasons for dismissing the application for permission to produce additional evidence --- High Court could have decided the appeal before it on merits and was competent to look into the reasons given by the Appellate Court in dismissing the application for additional evidence --- Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and matter was remanded to High Court for decision of second appeal afresh, Appeal was allowed.

For more, you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property

  PLJ 2026 SC 96 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present:   Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ. AYESHA TAYYAB--Petitioner versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION CANTT.DISTRICT SIALKOT, etc.--Respondents C.P. No. 1575 of 2024, decided on 22.5.2025. (On appeal against the order dated 08.03.2024 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 1684 of 2024) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 406--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199(1)(a)(ii)--Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898), S. 561-A--Quashment of criminal proceedings and Quashment of FIR--Entrustment of property and dishonest   misappropriation   of   entrusted   property--“Qarz-e-Hasna”--Amount was handed over as a loan/trust--High Court observed that no offence under section 406 PPC was made out from contents of FIR and proceeded to quash same under its constitutional jurisdiction conferred by Article 199--Contents of FIR determine whether a cogni...

Co-sharer

Possession of one co-sharer in possession of all . 1998 MLD 857, 1857; 2006 YLR 831; 2008 SCMR 661, 616; 2008 SCMR 905. Co-sharer to establish right of co-heirship . 2008 MLD 278.  For  more , you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006

Prosecution should be afforded fair opportunity of trial

  PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 42 [Balochistan High Court, Quetta] Present:  Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ. Dr.  MUHAMMAD ARIF--Appellant versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 3 others--Respondents Crl. Acq. A. No. 461 of 2019, decided on 21.12.2020. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----Ss. 265-K, 249-A & 417(2)--Jurisdiction u/S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.--Exercise of powers--Appeal against acquittal--The object of exercise of powers is to prevent abuse of law available to learned trial Court under sections 265-K and 249-A of Cr.P.C., however, in a case where sufficient, prima facie, evidence is available, powers may not be exercised as to throttle process of justice--The primary consideration to be kept in view would be whether continuance of proceedings before could be a futile exercise, wastage of time and abuse of process of Court or not--If on basis of facts admitted and a patent on record no offence can be made out, then it would amount to abuse of proc...