Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: "PLJ 2004 Lahore 697. Present: Muhammad Muzammal Khan J. Petitioner: Mst. Naziran Bibi vs. Respondents: Abdul Sattar and 12 others. Civil Revision No. 1729 of 2003, heard on 16-12-2003. -----Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908), Order XLI, Rule 27 - The case involved a suit for declaration regarding deprivation from hereditary rights and the appreciation of evidence. The court held that an application for additional evidence cannot be rejected solely on the grounds of delay. The High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment and decree, along with the order rejecting the petition for additional evidence, and remanded the case to the appellate court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. [P 700] A. -----Background: The petitioner challenged the judgments and decrees issued by the Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge, which rejected her claim of ownership through a gift deed and her right to introduce additional evidence. The respondents filed a suit asserting hereditary rights, claiming they were heirs of the deceased, while alleging the petitioner used a fraudulent gift deed to deprive them of their inheritance. The petitioner countered, asserting that the property was lawfully gifted to her by the deceased and, thus, was outside the inheritance claim. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s claim to the property through the gift deed was valid and effectively excluded the respondents’ inheritance rights. -----2- Whether the appellate court was correct in refusing the petitioner’s application for additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27, CPC, due to its belated submission. -----3- Whether the petitioner's additional evidence, regarding death entries and inheritance rights from her father, Yar Muhammad, should be permitted to substantiate her claim. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the appellate court's rejection of additional evidence was unjustified, as the death records of the petitioner’s parents were material to the case and directly impacted her inheritance rights. The court emphasized that the refusal based solely on the late filing did not adhere to legal standards and deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity to present her case. Consequently, the appellate court’s decision was set aside, and the matter was remanded to reconsider both the appeal and the application for additional evidence. -----Citations/Precedents: Order XLI, Rule 27, CPC – Permits the introduction of additional evidence if essential to the case’s outcome. Pakistan Transport Company Ltd. v. Walayat Khan (2002 SCMR 1470) – Reinforced the principle that court decisions must be based on legally recognized grounds and material relevance. Allah Bakhsh v. Ghulam Shabbir Shah (1980 SCMR 789) – Established that legitimate claims of ownership, once substantiated, should not be overlooked due to procedural delays.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.