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

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

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---Oral gift---Proof---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 the said order---Validity---As the plea of oral gift was specifically denied by the defendants/respondents in the suit, so the petitioner/plaintiff would have been expected to produce the evidence of persons who were alleged witnesses of transaction of oral gift---However, instead of producing said witnesses, the petitioner opted to produce one of the defendants as P.W. in evidence which was objected to---Petitioner/plaintiff did not claim in the plaint that the respondents/defendants were either witnesses to the alleged oral gift or they had ever acknowledged the same or that they were privy to any instrument in respect of the oral gift or were witnesses therein and, being so, propriety demanded that the petitioner and his co-plaintiffs shall in the first instance complete their oral evidence in support of their plea of oral gift and, thereafter, if the court felt that the recording of evidence of any of the defendants who had not entered appearance in the suit as a witness would be necessary or material it would not be denuded of its jurisdiction under O. XVI, Rr. 20 & 21, C.P.C., to compel the attendance of such party to record their statement---Permission to produce adversary may be accorded under O. XVI, R. 21, C.P.C., if such person was an executant of the document---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.

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

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC