Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2019 CLC 1566
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Year of Decision: 2018
Decision Date: 2018-12-24
Parties: Mst. SALMA KAUSAR vs ANAYAT ALI and others
This judicial decision was delivered by the Lahore High Court on 2018-12-24. The matter involves proceedings between Mst. SALMA KAUSAR and ANAYAT ALI and others, officially reported as 2019 CLC 1566. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
Case cited as 2019 CLC 1566
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muzamil Akhtar Shabir Title: Mst. SALMA KAUSAR vs ANAYAT ALI and others Case No.: W.P. No. 19044 of 2018 Date of Judgment:2018-12-24 Reported As: 2020 [M] C L R 872, 2019 CLC 1566 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER MUZAMIL AKHT AR SHABIR, J.--Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Muzaf fargarh, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence by referring the matter to expert for comparison of thumb impression of respondent No.1 with the ones available on Original Mutation No. 648 dated 16.06.2005 has been declined. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the afore-referred additional evidence relating to comparison of thumb impression was required for just decision of the case and the said application has not rightly been refused. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. The petitioner has filed the application for additional evidence seeking comparison of thumb impressions of the respondent No.1 with thumb impressions available on mutation No. 648 for the first time before the appellate court, which has been declined by the said court. The Order XLI, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. provides that the appellate court may allow a party to lead additional evidence in case request for producing such evidence was made before the trial court but the said court did not allow the same or the said evidence was required to be received on the record by the court for just decision of the matter . In the present case, the appellate court while adjudicating upon the application for permission to lead additional evidence has observed that the petitioner neither averred in her written statement for comparison of the thumb impression on the plaintif f/respondent No. 1 with the thumb impression over the Impugned mutation nor during the trial she made any request. The appellate court has also not required the said evidence to be produced in evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment and no substantial cause has been pleaded by the petitioner to produce such evidence at the appellate stage. Grounds provided under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. have not been established. Allowing or disallowing the said application was discretionary with the appellate court and discretion exercised by the court of competent jurisdiction cannot be called in question at
---
## Page 2
this stage in constitutional jurisdiction of this court when the main appeal is still pending before the said court and no illegality or violation of any law has been pointed out in the impugned order . The petitioner must wait for the decision of the final appeal before court refusing to allow additional evidence along with any final challengeable passed against the petitioner . At this stage, this petition is premature and consequently dismissed.