| Case ID |
67d4287e-df0d-4363-97eb-84674c0cacae |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 21, 2016 |
| Hearing Date |
Dec 21, 2016 |
| Decision |
The court ruled that the trial court had erroneously decreed the suit without the proper examination of evidence. The plaintiff's reliance on photocopies instead of original documents was inadequate for establishing a claim. The case was dismissed on grounds of non-compliance with procedural requirements and the necessity for the government to be impleaded as a party in the suit, as the defendants were acting in their official capacities. The judgment emphasized that parties must succeed on the merits of their case, not on the weaknesses of the opposing side. Thus, the appeal was allowed, and the earlier decrees were set aside. |
| Summary |
In the case of District Officer (Revenue) Thatta vs. Karim Bux, the Sindh High Court addressed significant issues regarding civil procedure and the admissibility of evidence. The court found that the trial court's decision to decree the suit based on ex parte proof was flawed, as it did not examine the plaintiff under oath or require original documents to be presented. The ruling reinforced the importance of adhering to procedural laws, particularly the Civil Procedure Code, which mandates that all relevant parties, especially government entities, must be included in legal proceedings. This case serves as a critical reminder of the legal requirements for evidence and the necessity for courts to ensure that justice is served based on the substantive merits of a case, rather than procedural oversights by the defendants. The court's decision to dismiss the suit underscores the importance of proper legal representation and the necessity for litigants to substantiate their claims with credible evidence. Keywords related to this case include 'Civil Procedure Code', 'ex parte proceedings', 'evidence admissibility', 'government litigation', and 'Sindh High Court'. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
NAZAR AKBAR, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Namo for Applicant No. 1,
Syed Alley Maqbool Additional Advocate General, Sindh for Applicant No. 2,
K.B. Bhutto for Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE) THATTA
|
| Respondents |
KARIM BUX
|
| Citations |
2016 SLD 3538 = 2016 CLC 1372
|
| Other Citations |
Nisar Ahmed and others v. Habib Bank Ltd. 1980 CLC 981,
Haji Muhammad Moosa and another v. Provincial Government of Balochistan 1986 CLC 2951,
Malik Muhammad Saeed v. Mian Muhammad Sadiq 1985 MLD 1440,
Divisional Forest Officer, Afforestation Division, Sanghar at Khipro v. Khan through Legal Heirs and 10 others 2008 SCMR 442,
Government of Balochistan, CWPP&H Department and others v. Nawabzada Mir Tariq Hussain Khan Magsi and others 2010 SCMR 115,
Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Hussain PLD 1993 SC 147,
Haji Abdul Aziz v. Government of Balochistan through Deputy Commissioner, Khuzdar 1999 SCMR 16
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Sindh Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)
|
| Sections |
O. VIII, R. 10,
O. IX, R. 9,
S. 79,
Arts. 2(c), 70 & 72,
S. 161,
S. 172
|