- If the documents intended to be produced are part of public record and have come from proper custody, their authenticity is beyond doubt, these are necessary for correct decision of the case, the trial Court shall exercise its discretion in favour of accepting the documents and such like documents shall not ordinarily be refused — The documents which are part of public record should not be ordinarily refused on the ground that these were not produced at earlier stage. Chief Engineer & another v. Anwar Begum & 9 others 2009 SCR 199 (J)
- Rules should be interpreted liberally — While exercising the discretion the Court shall keep in mind that documents intended to be produced shall not prolong the trial and these are free from any suspicion — The parties shall not unnecessarily be put a position so, they lose their case due to non-production of genuine documents. Chief Engineer v. Anwar Begum 2009 SCR 199 (K)
- —at later stage—question of satisfaction —upto Civil Court—so far as the question of satisfaction is concerned, it is upto the Civil Court and writ jurisdiction the same cannot be substituted by the High Court, thus, the Civil Court has to be determine the reasons and justification for accepting the application for producing the documentary evidence. The decision of the trial court is always subject to power of appellate Court, hence, in other way the parties have remedy of appeal against the final adjudication to question the trial Court’s findings. When the Court, having jurisdiction and powers, exercises its jurisdiction within limits of law it is not open to be challenged in writ. The order of the trial Court has also been judges by the Additional District Court, therefore, there is neither any lack of jurisdiction nor violation of law. The High Court rightly declined to entertain the writ in such state of affairs. Basharat Mehmood v. Raja Muhammad Waleed & 8 others 2017 SCR 257 (D)
error: Content is protected !!