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

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

When an application for restoration of suit is allowed, all interim orders passed prior to dismissal of suit for non-prosecution, stand revived

PLJ 2018 Islamabad 276 Present :  Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J. M/s. PANTHER DEVELOPERS--Petitioner versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (ADJ), WEST, ISLAMABAD and 2 others--Respondents W.P. No. 977 of 2018, decided on 10.4.2018. Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (IV of 2001)-- ----S. 17(9)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Execution of lease agreement--Default in payment of rent--Violation of terms and Conditions--Eviction Petition--Dismissed for non prosecution--Application for restoration--Allowed--Tentative order--Struck off right of defence--Eviction Petition allowed--Appeal was dismissed--Determination--Direction to--It is well settled that when a suit is dismissed for non-prosecution, and an application for restoration is filed, Court/Tribunal can, while said application is pending, pass interim orders--It is also well settled that when an application for restoration of suit is allowed, all interim orders passed prior to dismissal of suit for non...

2013 S C M R 587

Rule that no limitation ran against a void order was not an inflexible rule --- Party could not sleep over to challenge a void order and it was bound to challenge the same within the stipulated/Prescribed time period of limitation from the date of knowledge before the proper forum in appropriate proceedings --- Appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal was admittedly time-barred, and was rightly dismissed as being hit by limitation and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was found --- High Court agreed with the order of Appellate Tribunal --- Supreme Court had affirmed concurrent findings recorded by fora below --- Review petition was dismissed in circumstances. For  more , you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006