| Case ID |
23090014-ff77-41d0-a6da-76893f044fe8 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No. 3159 of 2020 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 04, 2022 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Islamabad High Court found that the trial court had erred in its decision regarding the production of evidence related to the case involving the Capital Development Authority (CDA). The petitioner claimed damages for the cancellation of an industrial plot due to the CDA's failure to develop the area. The court noted that the trial court incorrectly conflated the legal burden of proof with the evidential burden, placing undue obligation on the petitioner to produce documents that were not in their possession. The High Court set aside the trial court's order and remanded the case for fresh consideration, emphasizing that public organizations like the CDA have a higher duty to disclose relevant records. The court's decision highlights the importance of fair trial principles and the need for courts to actively seek the truth rather than remain passive observers. |
| Summary |
In this significant case concerning the rights of petitioners against governmental entities, the Islamabad High Court addressed the issue of evidence production in civil trials. The petitioners, Messrs NASEEM COMPANY, contended that their industrial plot was unfairly cancelled by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) due to the latter's failure to develop the area. The court examined the principles of the Qanun-e-Shahadat and the Civil Procedure Code, specifically focusing on the burden of proof and the admissibility of additional evidence. It was determined that the trial court had made a critical error by requiring the petitioners to produce documents that were not in their possession while neglecting the evidential responsibilities of the CDA. This ruling underscores the court's commitment to ensuring justice and the proper handling of public records, reinforcing the notion that public organizations are expected to be transparent and cooperative in legal proceedings. The High Court's decision not only calls for a reconsideration of the case but also serves as a precedent for future cases involving the disclosure of evidence by public authorities. |
| Court |
Islamabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Capital Development Authority
|
| Judges |
SARDAR EJAZ ISHAQ KHAN, J
|
| Lawyers |
Sardar M. Haroon Sami,
Syed Muhammad Ali Bokhari
|
| Petitioners |
Messrs NASEEM COMPANY and others
|
| Respondents |
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others
|
| Citations |
2022 SLD 2141,
2022 MLD 1426
|
| Other Citations |
Zakaullah Khan v. Muhammad Aslam and another 1991 SCMR 2126,
Messrs Sentinel (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Mst. Gul Fareen Jana and another 2008 PLC 304,
Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited v. Malik Abdul Habib and another 1993 SCMR 848,
Abdul Karim Nausherwani and another v. The State through Chief Ehtesab Commissioner 2015 SCMR 397,
Saeed Ahmed v. The State 2015 SCMR 710
|
| Laws Involved |
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
85,
86,
117,
120,
129,
42,
54,
XIII, R.2,
XIII, R.3
|