BR100 Increased By (2.46%)
BR30 Increased By (3.22%)
KSE100 Increased By (2.21%)
KSE30 Increased By (2.33%)
BECO 5.62 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.72%)
BML 59.51 Decreased By ▼ -1.71 (-2.79%)
BOP 34.61 Increased By ▲ 0.93 (2.76%)
CNERGY 8.08 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
DCL 12.05 Increased By ▲ 0.41 (3.52%)
FCCL 54.40 Increased By ▲ 2.26 (4.33%)
FCSC 5.52 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-1.95%)
FFL 18.05 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.22%)
FNEL 1.33 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-1.48%)
HUMNL 11.07 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.27%)
KEL 8.05 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (2.68%)
KOSM 5.88 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (2.62%)
MLCF 90.52 Increased By ▲ 4.01 (4.64%)
NBP 190.17 Increased By ▲ 5.87 (3.19%)
PACE 11.53 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-1.03%)
PAEL 41.07 Increased By ▲ 1.11 (2.78%)
PIAHCLA 25.84 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (0.66%)
PIBTL 17.51 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (1.39%)
PPL 225.84 Increased By ▲ 3.17 (1.42%)
PRL 34.63 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (0.49%)
PTC 64.62 Increased By ▲ 0.88 (1.38%)
SEARL 91.38 Increased By ▲ 0.92 (1.02%)
SSGC 26.97 Increased By ▲ 0.30 (1.12%)
TELE 8.93 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.22%)
THCCL 69.16 Increased By ▲ 0.69 (1.01%)
TPLP 10.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.30 (-2.68%)
TREET 24.64 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.24%)
TRG 69.78 Decreased By ▼ -0.81 (-1.15%)
WAVES 11.16 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.45%)
WTL 1.27 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) held receiving any document without oath statements of advocates and then marking them as exhibits can cause a miscarriage of justice.

The court said prejudice must not be caused to the litigants because of any mistake of the courts though the litigants and their counsel are also required to be vigilant.

The court passed this order in a petition of Mst Afia Ambrine challenging the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by a lower court based on alleged bogus death certificates. It said the superior courts have repeatedly observed that receiving of any document without oath statements of advocates and then marking them as exhibits, deprives the opponent party of their right to cross-examine the documents in question.

It said the documents which are marked as exhibits without oath statements of the advocates can result into the possibility to prejudice the interest of the parties to the suit. It allowed the petition and said that the impugned orders had been passed without proper application of judicial mind. It is the duty of the courts to adhere to the settled law, the court added.

The court observed that the revision court though noticed that the trial court acted in purely mechanical manners but without looking into the record and appreciating the stage of the case proceeded to uphold the decision of the trial court.

It said orders to exhibit and then to de-exhibit have been passed not merely ignoring the Code and the QSO but at the same time the repeated observation of the Supreme Court as well as this court.

It set aside the orders of the trial court marking the documents as exhibits without oath statements of the advocate and then ordered to de-exhibit them as well as.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.