Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: M. AFAQ MALI K VS Respondent: Mst. IQBAL BEGUM Alias BALLAN
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Aslam Riaz Hussain, Shafi-ur-Rehman Title: M. AFAQ MALI K vs Mst. IQBAL BEGUM Alias BALLAN Case No.: Civil Petition No.385 of 1980 Civil Revision No. 7 of 1980 Date of Judgment:1985-03-02 Reported As: 1985 SCMR 1739 Result: Leave refused
Judgment ORDER SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 13-1-1980 whereby a civil revision petition filed by him was dismissed. The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the registered deed of a gift, dated 24-6- 1968 in favour of his wife, the respondent, was illegal and void for various reasons. The suit was contested and the issues were framed. Two witnesses of the petitioner were examined and the matter was adjourned to 27-6-1977. On that date the petitioner did not appear nor his counsel nor his witnesses. The suit was dismissed under Order IX, rule 8, C.P.C. On 6-7-1977 the petitioner applied for restoration of the suit. The application was dismissed as sufficient ground was not shown. This order was maintained in appeal and not interfered in revision by the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as a direction has been given to the petitioner to produce evidence and there had been a failure on his part to produce it and as material was already available on the record the proper course would have been to decide the case on merits and not to dismiss it in default. He has relied on Maulvi Abdul Aziz Khan v. Mst. Shah Jahan Begum PLD 1971 SC 434 and Muhammad Haleem v. H.H. Muhammad Naim and others, PLD 1969 SC 270. We find that the course followed by the trial Court in dismissing the suit in default was not contrary to any provision of law. It had exercised a discretion in the matter. It was for the petitioner to have come forward with reasonable and sufficient grounds explaining his failure. As that was not done restoration of the suit was refused. The cases referred to and cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no application to the facts of the case as they relate to the closure of evidence on
---
## Page 2
failure of the party to produce evidence. The petition has no merit and leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.