Jjuuuukmkimjjm lllllll mmmmmm iiiiii mnnnn, Assignments of Law of Torts

Download Jjuuuukmkimjjm lllllll mmmmmm iiiiii mnnnn and more Assignments Law of Torts in PDF only on Docsity! IN THE COURT OF MIAN MASOOD HUSSAIN, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, YAZMAN, DISTRICT BAHAWALPUR. Hakeem Muhammad Aslam versus Atta Muhammad, etc. Civil Appeal. Application for additional evidence. ORDER/18.7.2012. This application for additional documentary evidence is filed by the appellant on the ground that documents i.e. order dated 24.3.2009 delivered by Motor Registering Authority/Excise and Taxation Officer, Bahawalpur, order dated 10.12.2011 delivered by Motor Registering Authority, Bahawalpur and death certificate of Beer Din son of Khairati, predecessor-in-interest of the parties were not produced by the appellant/petitioner and suit was decreed by telling a lie by respondent No.1, therefore, these documents will bring correct picture before the Court. The above said documents were not produced by the appellant/petitioner at the time of trial of the suit. The above said documents were handed over by the appellant/petitioner to his learned Advocate which were misplaced. Due to above said reason the above said documents were not submitted in the evidence by the appellant. Respondent No.1 played a fraud with the Motor Registration Authority by producing bogus affidavit of Beer Din about the transfer of Tractor of Beer Din into his name. The transfer in the name of Atta Muhammad was cancelled by the Motor Registration Authority. Atta Muhammad also preferred appeal which was dismissed by the same authority. Through the above said documents appellant/petitioner wants to bring correct picture before the Court. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has contended that appellant filed a declaratory suit by claiming that he is one of the legal heirs of Beer Din and he is entitled to get his share from the agricultural machinery (well explained in the head note of the plaint). The learned trial Court keeping in view divergent pleadings of the parties framed Issue No.1 in which the onus was on the appellant/petitioner to prove that he is entitled to get his respective share from Tractor No.9354/BWP and other equipments being legal heir of Beer Din. The learned trial Court while deciding Issue No.1 against the appellant held that the above said tractor was transferred in the name of respondent No.1 by the competent authority on 20.2.1998. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to get his share from the above said tractor. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner further contended that the above said documents were not produced by appellant/petitioner and that documents were obtained by the appellant during the pendency of the suit and that documents were handed over by him to his learned counsel and the same were misplaced. Therefore, through the above said additional documentary evidence the appellant shall prove that Atta Muhammad respondent No.1 fraudulently transferred the above said tractor in his name and that transfer was cancelled by the competent authority. Atta Muhammad filed appeal against that order which was also dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has further contended that presumption of truth is attached to official record. If the appellant will not be allowed to produce above said documents in evidence, he shall suffer irreparable loss. 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 although vehemently contested the application for additional evidence but at the same time learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted 2