Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD RIAZ
P L D 1992 Lahore
P L D 1992 Lahore. 237 Before Muhammad I1yas, Actg. CJ
Haji MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH
versus
MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Respondent
Civil Revision No.1903‑D of 1991, decided on 18th February,
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1%8)‑‑
‑‑‑‑ OXVII, R.3 ‑‑‑ Plaintiffs evidence was closed and suit dismissed because of his failure to produce his evidence though several opportunities were given to him ‑‑‑ Contention of plaintiff was that he, was sick on the, day when his evidence was closed and, therefore, he ought to have been allowed one, opportunity to produce evidence ‑‑‑ No medical certificate was shown to the Trial Court regarding sickness of the plaintiff before his evidence was closed‑Such certificate was not produced even before the Appellate Court and it was for the first time that the certificate from a private practitioner was placed before High Court in revision‑‑‑Appellate Court had passed impugned order on 12th September, 1991 and the certificate produced before the High Court was issued on 19th November, 1991 which meant that the certificate was obtained after the dismissal of plaintiffs appeal ‑‑‑ Ground of sickness thus was dearly an afterthought ‑‑‑ Non‑production of certificate before either of the two Courts below and its issuance after the dismissal of appeal had made the certificate doubtful and it dearly showed that plaintiff was grossly negligent in the matter of adducing evidence in support of his claim‑‑‑Trial Court, therefore, was perfectly justified in closing ‑evidence of plaintiff.
Muhammad Farooq Oureshi Chishti for Petitioner.
.ORDER
This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the petitioner, Haji Muhammad Abdullah, against the respondent, Muhammad Riaz, for recovery of Rs.22,914. The suit was contested by the respondent whereupon issues were struck. The petitioner was given several opportunities to produce I evidence but he did not do so. His evidence was, therefore, closed and the suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Jauharabad, District Khushab. The petitioner went in appeal before the District Judge, Khushab, but he did not do so. His evidence was, therefore closed and the suit was dismissed by Civil Judge, Jauharabad, District Khushab. The petitioner went in appeal before the District Judge, Khushab, but without success. Hence this civil revision.
2. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was sick on the day when his evidence was closed and, therefore, he may be allowed one opportunity to produce evidence.
3. Admittedly, no medical certificate was shown to the learned Civil Judge regarding sickness of the petitioner before his evidence was closed. The certificate was not produced even before the learned District Judge at the time of hearing of the appeal because there is no mention of the certificate in his order. It is for the first time that the certificate has been placed before me. It was issued on 19th November, 1991, by a private practitioner. The learned District Judge had passed the impugned order on 12th September, 1991. This means that the certificate was obtained after the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal. Thus, the ground of sickness of the petitioner is clearly an afterthought. Also, non‑production of certificate before either of the two Courts below and its issuance after the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal, makes the certificate doubtful. I am, therefore, not impressed by the plea of sickness raised by the petitioner
4. As stated by the learned District Judge in his order, the petitioner was required to produce evidence on 13th March, 1991 and 27th April, 1991 but he did not do so. On 27th April, 1991 the case was adjourned to 11th June, 1991 on payment of costs and the petitioner was warned that last opportunity was being given to him to do the needful. On 11th June, 1991, he did not enter appearance nor did he bring any witness on that date. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, did not agree to further adjourn the case and closed the petitioner's evidence.
5. . The circumstances mentioned above clearly show that the petitioner was grossly negligent in the matter of adducing evidence in support of his claim. The learned trial Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in closing his evidence. It is not the case of the petitioner that he did not request for adjournment of the suit to the date on which his evidence was closed. Orders passed by the two Courts below are, therefore, not open to any legitimate exception.
6. There is no merit in this civil revision. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine
M,.BA./M‑262/L
Petition dismissed,