13. Notwithstanding the fact that the entire stance
taken in the post-remand evidence by the
respondent were never incorporated in the pleadings
nor they were ever asserted in the earlier depositions
and in law the respondent could not even permitted
to produce evidence for which there was no
foundation in the pleadings. As ruled by the August
Supreme Court in “Abdul Haq and others v. Shaukat Ali and others” (2003 SCMR 74) and “Sardar
Muhammad Naeem Khan v. Returning Officer” (2015
SCMR 1698) evidence beyond pleadings would be
inadmissible, but also this subsequent stance,
vitiated the entire oral evidence and also the
pleadings in the post-remand proceedings where the
respondents’ stance was that the alleged payment
was made on 23.11.2003. So much so that in both
pre and post-remand evidence of the D.Ws it was not
denied that the possession was never transferred.
D.W4, Muhammad Saeed, claimed that because of
the standing crop the possession was given later
while the respondent Zulfiqar appearing as D.W5
claims that petitioner forcibly continued the
possession.
Part of Judgment
Lahore High court
Civil Revision
2504305.125-17
2018 LHC 3528
0 comments:
Post a Comment