Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM PETITONER VS PUNJAB PROVINCE THROUGH COLLECTOR SHEIKHUPURA
Summary: Summary pending.
REHMAT ALI VS NAZIR HUSSAIN
Summary: Summary pending.
NASIR AHMED VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
THE STATE VS HADAN
Summary: Summary pending.
GOVT OF NWFP VS ZARIF KHAN
Summary: Summary pending.
AMBREEN GUL VS NOMINATION BOARD OF AZAD JAMMU KASHMIR MUZAFFARABAD THROUGH CHAIRMAN MUZAFFARABAD
Summary: Summary pending.
AMIR NAWAB VS REGIONAL MANAGER AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN MARDAN
Summary: Summary pending.
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS ABUDL RASHID ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL ISLAMABAD DATED PASSED IN APPEALS NOS R RR R R R R R R R R R R R R R R RESPECTIVELYV CAS NOS TO GHULAM MUSTAFA KHAN R J VS R FEDERATION OF PAKISTANTHROUGH SECRETARY FINANCE DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL ISLAMABAD DATED IN ALL CASES PASSED IN APPEALS NOS ALL R OF
Summary: Summary pending.
MST JEWAN BIBI VS INAYATMASIH
Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)
----O. XLI, R. 27—Additional evidence—Scope—When permissible
Production of additional evidence at the appellate stage—Scope—Held, additional evidence cannot be allowed to fill up lacunae in a party’s case—Appellate courts have discretion to admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances where it is necessary for the just decision of the case—In the present case, the petitioners failed to produce crucial documents regarding res judicata during the trial, appeal, and revision proceedings—Held, failure to timely produce evidence constitutes gross negligence, and appellate courts were justified in refusing to admit additional evidence—Petition dismissed.
Cited Cases:
• Muhammad Yaqoob v. Government of Sindh (1990 SCMR 1905)
• Ghulam Muhammad v. Abdul Shakoor (PLD 1980 SC 11)
(b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)
----S. 11—Res judicata—Burden of proof—Failure to produce evidence—Effect
Plea of res judicata—Scope—Held, the issue of res judicata must be decided like any other issue, requiring proper evidence—Burden of proof lies on the party asserting res judicata to establish that the matter was previously decided between the same parties on the same subject matter—In the present case, petitioners failed to produce documents proving a prior decision in their favor—Held, courts cannot assume res judicata in the absence of evidence, and petitioners' negligence in failing to present relevant documents resulted in forfeiture of their claim—Petition dismissed.
Cited Cases:
• Lal Chand v. Indarjit (AIR 1920 PC 50)
• Muhammad Akbar v. Khadim Hussain (PLD 1985 SC 50)
(c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
----Art. 185(3)—Leave to appeal—Scope—Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Grant of leave to appeal—Principles—Held, Supreme Court grants leave to appeal only where a case raises substantial questions of law, or where a miscarriage of justice has occurred—In the present case, petitioners failed to establish any legal basis for granting leave, as they were negligent in producing crucial documents at all stages of litigation—Held, Supreme Court will not interfere to rescue a party from the consequences of its own negligence—Leave refused.
Cited Cases:
• Mst. Sardar Begum v. Munir Ahmad (1993 SCMR 93)
• Government of Punjab v. Mst. Durr-e-Sabih (PLD 1997 SC 162)
(d) Administration of Justice
----Litigants’ duty to diligently pursue their case—Effect of negligence
Duty of litigants to present their case—Scope—Held, courts are not bound to remedy a party’s failure to present evidence—Litigants must pursue their case with due diligence and cannot expect courts to compensate for their negligence—In the present case, petitioners were granted four years to present evidence but failed to do so—Held, allowing relief to such negligent litigants would be unfair to the opposing party—Petition dismissed.
Disposition: Leave to appeal refused. Petition dismissed.
MUBASHIR ALIAS GOGA VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.