Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD INAM VS Respondent: PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LTD
1988 S C M R 1184
1988 S C M R 1184
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Khawaja MUHAMMAD INAM‑‑Petitioner
versus
PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LTD.‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.124 of 1988, decided on 9th April, 1988.
(From the order dated 19‑1‑1988 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.1409‑B/85).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑O.XVIII, R.2‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Suit for recovery of amount of promissory note‑‑Failure to produce evidence during long period of 11 years‑‑Abuse of 'process of Court‑‑Closing of evidence‑‑Suit for recovery of amount‑‑Defendant failing to produce all his evidence during 11 years‑‑Evidence closed and suit decreed‑ Decision upheld in appeal and revision‑‑Leave to appeal refused, holding, that period of 11 years was more than enough to enable defendant to lead all evidence.
Talat Farooq Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 9thf. April, 1988.
ORDER SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑In consideration for the purchase of petrolium products the petitioner executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent in the sum of Rs.28,737 on 11‑12‑62. On 17‑2‑64 the responder t filed a civil suit for the recovery of the amount of the promissory note. After some unusually prolonged proceedings, the respondent closed his evidence or, 22‑12‑"r6. The petitioner was unable to produce all his evidence till 4‑7‑81 when the trial Court closed his case. The petitioner filed a review petition, then a revision petition and finally a constitutional petition to challenge the order by which his evidence was closed but without any success. He then had his own statement recorded on 22‑5‑84. On the same day, the trial Court decreed the suit against him. He filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed. He then filed a revision petition in the High Court but again without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The main ground urged in support of this petition is that the trial Court had erred in closing his evidence. After hearing the learned counsel, we are unable to agree with him, for, a period of 11 years was more than enough, to put it mildly, to enable him to lead all his evidence. The petition is without any merit and is dismissed as such.
M.I./M‑421/S Petition dismissed.