Mst. AFIA AMBRINE vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT Ss — 2025 PLD 124 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.

Mst. AFIA AMBRINE VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Documentary evidence---Objection to admissibility---Petitioner/defendant filed application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., seeking to set aside ex-parte decree passed against him---Respondents/plaintiffs sought de-exhibition of certain documents which were produced by petitioner/defendant in his evidence during proceedings under S. 12(2), C.P.C.---Trial Court allowed application of respondents/plaintiffs and de-exhibited the documents, which order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Objections with respect to admissibility of documents can be of two kinds: (i) document is inadmissible in evidence being irrelevant or not capable for being considered in evidence ("inadmissibility in evidence"); and (ii) objections directed towards mode of proof due to irregularity or insufficiency ("mode of proof")---If no objection is raised as to inadmissibility in evidence but just mode of proof, after the document has been marked as an exhibit, the principle of waiver for failing to raise objection as to formal validity can be attracted---Proper time for raising such objection as to formal validity or mode of proof is prior to marking a document as an exhibit or at the time when it is sought to be marked as an exhibit---Such objections should be taken at the earliest and once document has been tendered and marked as an exhibit, belated objection as to mode of proof is discouraged by Courts---High Court set aside orders of Trial Court marking the documents as exhibits without oath statement of advocate and the order to de-exhibit them and also set aside judgment of Lower Appellate Court---High Court noted that the petitioner/defendant could file suitable application to produce further evidence/documents or re-examination of any witness---High Court directed Trial Court to give chance to respondents/plaintiffs to cross-examine as to additional evidence, if produced---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Mst. AFIA AMBRINE vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT Ss — 2025 PLD 124 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD