MUHAMMAD YOUSUF And 12 Others vs ABDUL KHALIQ And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court. The core grievance of the petitioners was that the High Court failed to consider, dispose of, or address the efficacy and relevance of applications filed under Section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure along with particulars of documents to produce additional evidence concerning the title to the disputed property, despite notices having been issued and there being no opposition at the hearing. The Supreme Court examined the record, found the grievance substantiated, and noted that respondent No.1 did not object to the matter being remanded. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, accepted it, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh disposal after duly addressing and deciding the applications for additional evidence.
- Whether an appellate court is bound to dispose of pending applications for the production of additional evidence?
- Can a judgment of the High Court be set aside for failing to consider material documents and applications relating to additional evidence?
- What is the appropriate course of action when an appellate court omits to deal with an application for additional evidence filed under Section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Section 107(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The grievance of the petitioners in this case was that alongwith the appeal filed in the High Court, they had filed an application under section 107(2), C.P.C. And another application disclosing the particulars of the documents which they wanted to produce by way of additional evidence in support of ground (E) taken in appeal before the High Court. Notices on those applications for bringing on record the additional evidence had issued. At the hearing of the argument there was no opposition to the admission of these documents relating to the title of the petitioners in the property. Nevertheless, the High Court did not either take into consideration these documents, nor did it dispose of the applications, nor did it refer to those documents with a view to deal with their relevance and efficacy on the question before the High Court with regard to the title in the disputed property.
2. When the petition came up for hearing on an earlier date and this grievance was reiterated, we issued notice to the respondents "as to why this petition be not converted into appeal and case remanded to the High Court in view of non -consideration/non-disposal of the application for additional evidence", for disposing of the question of additional evidence and thereafter dealing with the appeal. In response to the notice, respondent No.1 has appeared in person and does not object to the suggested course being followed.
3. We find that the statements of facts made by the learned counsel for the petitioners find support from the record. In the circumstances, this petition is converted into appeal, accepted, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for disposal afresh after dealing with the applications for additional evidence.
Cited by 6 cases
- Sabira Bibi, Etc vs Mst. Safura Jan, Etc 2023 LHC 6830
- Mst. Ghulam Fatima and others vs Pahar Khan and others 2024 CLC 1538
- Messrs IRIS COMMUNICATIONS (PVT.) LTD vs AHMAD KHALID 2019 MLD 772
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs Rana DILBER HUSSAIN 2010 CLC 1059
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others 2005 SCMR 1231
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others 2006 PLJ SC 409