PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Khawaja JAVED MEHMOOD vs PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION arts — 2024 CLC 1503 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2024 CLC 1503 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
CLC
Parties
Khawaja JAVED MEHMOOD vs PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION arts
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 115---S; S. 115; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

Khawaja JAVED MEHMOOD VS PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION arts. 72 & 78---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Documentary evidence---Document tendered in evidence through statement of counsel---Legality---Misreading and non-reading of evidence---Effect---Suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court on the basis of two documents produced by respondent / defendant which documents were never confronted to petitioner / plaintiff and the same were made part of record through statement of counsel---Validity---Disputed documents cannot be tendered in evidence through statement of counsel of the party producing the document---Reason for such restriction is that through such procedure opposing party becomes deprived to challenge authenticity of such document by way of cross-examination---Revisional jurisdiction is hedged in S.115, C.P.C. and though ordinarily concurrent findings of facts are not disturbed but such findings are neither sacrosanct nor it is an inflexible rule that despite observing material flaws, revisional court has to abdicate to exercise its jurisdiction---Judgments passed by two Courts below were not based on proper appraisal of evidence---Trial Court while dismissing suit of petitioner / plaintiff grossly misread the evidence---Lower appellate Court while upholding judgment and decree of Trial Court committed material irregularity---High Court under S.115, C.P.C. was obliged and fully competent to correct such error in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction---Once it was established on record that concurrent findings were fraught with legal infirmities, it had become bounden duty of court exercising revisional powers to curb and stifle such illegalities and material irregularities---High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and suit was decreed in favour of petitioner / plaintiff---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English