Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: QAIM DIN VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
1988 S C M R 1965
1988 S C M R 1965
Present: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
QAIM DIN and others Petitioners
versus
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others Respondents
Civil Petition No.388 of 1988, decided on 19th July, 1988.
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 17‑2‑1988 in R.S.A. No.35 of 1976).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑O.XLI, R.27‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185 (3)‑ Petitioners were denied permission to produce additional documentary evidence in Appellate Court‑‑Appeal as a whole failed and second appeal was also dismissed‑‑Order impugned‑‑Plea that First Appellate Court erred in law in disallowing application under O.XLI, R.27, C.P.C. whereby petitioners' case was seriously affected resulting in dismissal of their first and second appeal, repelled‑‑First Appellate Court gave sound reasons for rejecting application as well as dismissing appeal and High Court was justified in dismissing second appeal‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Sidhu, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th July, 1988.
ORDER
GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J.‑‑Muhammad Hussain and his two brothers Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Sharif filed suit for possession through pre‑emption regarding land measuring 41 kanals 17 marlas situated in Mauza Khaprala Tehsil Pasrur District Sialkot against Qaim Din and others. The suit was contested. The trial Court after framing the necessary issues decreed the suit.
Qaim Din and his brother Muhammad Rafique filed appeal in the Court of District Judge. It was heard by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot. Pending appeal, an application was moved under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. by the petitioners requesting that copy of the record of right was omitted inadvertently, permission be given to exhibit the same so that it may be read as part of the evidence. The request was turned down. Appeal as a whole also failed. Qaim Din and his brother then filed a regular second appeal in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed by judgment dated 17‑2‑1988. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the first appellate Court ‑erred in law in disallowing the application with the result that the case of the petitioners was seriously affected as a result of which they lost the first and the second appeal.
We don't agree with that. The first appellate Court gave sound reasons for 'rejecting the application under Order 41, Rule 27, C. P. C. as well as dismissing the appeal. The High Court was justified in dismissing the second appeal.
Leave is accordingly refused. The petition is dismissed.
M.I. /Q‑15/S Petition dismissed.