Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.42,54 SRA,S.70,71 QSO,S.3 Limitation Act:Suit for declaration & injunction--oral sale--suit filed after 40 years--effect

Summary: S.96,114,115 CPC:Appeal,review & revision--- Scope of

Summary: PLJ 2013 AJK 42 Present Munir Ahmed Chaudhary J SALAT and 15 others - - Petitioners versus WADI HUSSAIN and 3 others - - Respondents CR No 22 of 2010 decided on 1952012 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - O XLI R2 7 - - Additional evidence - - Application for additional evidence was dismissed - - Assailed - - Validity - - Parties of an appeal would not be entitled to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary in Appellate Court provided the Court from whose decree the appeal was preferred had refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted or appellate Court required any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause - - Petition was dismissed [P 44] A Syed Tufail Hussain Bukhari Advocate for Petitioners Ch Mehboob Ellahi Advocate for Respondent No 1Judgement Result:Petition dismissed -----Background: The petitioners filed a pre-emption suit, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge. They appealed to the Additional District Judge and, during the appeal, sought to introduce additional evidence—specifically, an updated copy of the record of rights. The appellate court denied this request, leading to the filing of the present revision petition to allow additional evidence. -----Issues: 1- Admissibility of Additional Evidence: Whether additional evidence could be introduced in the appellate court under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court upheld the appellate court's dismissal of the request for additional evidence. Order XLI, Rule 27 permits additional evidence only when the lower court improperly excluded evidence or when the appellate court needs the evidence to deliver judgment. The petitioners’ request to introduce a new document appeared to address gaps in their original case, which is impermissible under Rule 27. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: 1994 SCR 238 PLJ 1997 AJ&K 84 2000 YLR 1847 PLJ 2003 SC 50 PLJ 2005 Lahore 1502 2009 YLR 125 2009 SCR 199 2011 CLC 1407 1996 SCR 22 1999 SCR 466: Established that additional evidence should not be admitted merely to strengthen a party's case by addressing gaps in original evidence.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.