Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

1988 C L C 2191

1988 C L C 2191

[Lahore]

Before Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, J

MALIK INDUSTRIES‑‑Petitioner

versus

Haji MUHAMMAD DIN‑‑Respondent

Civil Revision No. 1874/1) of 1987, decided on 12th March, 1988.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑

‑‑‑0. XVII, R. 3‑‑Closing of evidence‑‑Defendant whose evidence was closed and plaintiff's suit was decreed due to non‑production of evidence by him despite various adjournments, contended that as adjournment was not caused due to any fault on his part or on account of him, his evidence could not be closed‑‑Plaintiff having no objection if final opportunity was granted to defendant to produce his evidence, High Court setting aside judgment and decree of Courts below ' remanded case to decide afresh after providing one final opportunity to defendant to produce evidence.

Haji Muhammad Ramzan Saifi v. Mian Abdul Majid and others PLD 1986 SC 129 and Ghulam Hassan v. Rustam Ali and 3 others PLD 1987 Lah. 157 ref.

Syed Muhammad lqbal for Petitioner. Qazi Abdul Hayee for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th March. 1988.

JUDGMENT

This civil revision arose out of a suit for recovery of damages filed by the respondent. The evidence of the respondent/ plaintiff was recorded in respect of the issues framed by the learned trial Court but despite various opportunities being given, the defendant/ petitioner failed to examine any witness in support of his version. The learned trial Court, therefore, closed his evidence and decreed the suit. This was so done vide judgment and decree dated 20‑1‑1987. The appeal filed by the petitioner failed vide judgment and decree, dated 31‑11‑1987. Hence, this revision petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the suit made available by producing certified copies of the same. The plaintiff had produced his evidence and then the case was fixed for production of evidence by the defendant. Various opportunities were granted and then on 7‑5‑1986 on the request of the defendant/ petitioner, adjournment was granted for producing his evidence on 13‑7‑1986. On this date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and it was also noted that the file of the case was misplaced and the matter was fixed for 16‑7‑1986. The matter was then adjourned to 27‑9‑1986 for production of evidence by the defendant/ petitioners. Again as the Presiding Officer was on leave on 27‑9‑1986, the suit was adjourned to 18‑11‑1986. On this date as the witnesses of the defendant were not present, his evidence was closed. Learned counsel argued that as the adjournment was .not caused due to fault of the petitioner or on account of petitioner, evidence could not be closed by applying Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. In support of the submission, reliance was placed on Haji Muhammad Ramzan Saifi v. Mian Abdul Majid and others P L D 1986 SC 129 and Ghulam Hassan v. Rustam Ali and 3 others P L D 1987 Lah: 157.

3. Qazi Abdul Hayee, Advocate in order to cut short the controversy, stated that the respondent/ plaintiff will have no objection if one final opportunity is granted to the petitioner to produce his evidence. In view of above, the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below are set aside with the result that the suit shall stand remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision after providing one final opportunity to the petitioner to produce the evidence. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore on 28‑3‑1988. The learned Senior Civil Judge will have the record of the suit summoned and give one final opportunity to the petitioner to produce his evidence if any. The suit shall be decided by 30th May, 1988. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

H. B. T./M‑7195/L Case remanded

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Lahore High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant