MUHAMMAD ARIF vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Sargodha O — 2025 CLC 420 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation: 2025 CLC 420 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court: Lahore High Court
Year: 2025
Reporter: CLC
Parties: MUHAMMAD ARIF vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Sargodha O
Subject matter: Civil
Provisions referred to: S. 42---S; Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

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

MUHAMMAD ARIF VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Sargodha O. XVI, Rr. 19, 20 & 21---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 131 ---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Opposing party to be produced as own witness---Scope---Plaintiffs made attempt to produce one of the defendants ('defendant-in-question') as a Plaintiff' Witness (P.W.); the objection against it did not sustain with the Civil Court which passed the order against the defendants, however, District Court set-aside said the order---Validity---Perusal of the order of the Civil Judge shows that it was perfunctory which was passed without application of judicial mind, as the objection was declined simply for the reason that respondent could not produce any legal precedent, not realizing that it was the duty of court to decide the points raised before it in accordance with law and this duty could not be declined to be exercised for the reason that proper assistance was wanting---District Court, after examining the whole case, observed that defendant-in-question was a rival party against whom the allegations of breach of alleged rights claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff were raised in the plaint and that having been arrayed as defendant, he could not possibly be produced as a witness of plaintiff---Since no specific reason or explanation has been given for producing defendant-in-question as a witness by the petitioner/plaintiff, the District Court justifiably interfered with the order of the Civil/Trial Court and set it aside and in doing so no error of law was committed---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC

2025 CLC 236 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANMUHAMMAD ALI VS SECRETARY BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVT. OF BALOCHISTAN. Ss. 39, 42 and 54 - Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 - Suit for cancella…
2025 CLC 297 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANMUHAMMAD ALAM VS Malik ZAHOOR AHMED. Ss.42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 24, 35a & 115---Suit for declaration and injunction-…
2025 CLC 276 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANALI AKBAR VS Mst. NASEEM. S. 5, Sched---Maintenance allowance of minors---Father, responsibility of---Scope---Definition of maintenance, whi…
2025 CLC 253 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANDAD MUHAMMAD VS NATIONAL DATABASE and REGISTRATION AUTHORITY through Director General NADRA Provincial Headquarter Zarghoon Road, Quetta. Ss…
2025 CLC 1852 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESHABANA PARVEEN VS Malik MOHSIN HASSAN RASHEED Ss. 2(l) & 24---Eviction application---Relationship of landlord and tenant, denial of---Order…
2025 CLC 1852 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESHABANA PARVEEN VS Malik MOHSIN HASSAN RASHEED Words "may" and "shall" used in a section of an Act or an Ordinance---Whether directory or ma…

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