2006 PLP 916 (CLC)
SOOMAR — Applicant Versus BASHIR AHMED — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 916 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SOOMAR — Applicant Versus BASHIR AHMED — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 916 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 916 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 916 (CLC) (SOOMAR — Applicant Versus BASHIR AHMED — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmed Raza Siddiqui for Respondent.
- "Matter called. Advocates for plaintiff and defendant present. Party called absent defendant's side. Plaintiff present. Case adjourned to 30-7-2003.
- Apparently, both the orders on the diary as well as on the application cannot be termed as judicial orders nor they tally with each other, there would have been some speaking order at least on the application under Order XVIII, rule 17, C.P.C. in terms of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act. Advocate for applicant has further pointed out certified copy of statement of respondent recorded in the Court of S.D.M. by which he has allegedly admitted some sale agreement. This document is to be examined in Court and the parties to be given proper opportunity.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XVIII, R.17
Closing side of plaintiff
Application for opening the same
Court, after examining witnesses of plaintiff, remained vacant for some time and later on side of plaintiff was closed
No order was passed on application of plaintiff tiled by him for opening his side and defendant was allowed to produce his witnesses
Application for opening plaintiff's side filed under O.XVIII, R.17, C.P.C. remained pending and no order was passed thereon and later on same was dismissed as time barred by non-speaking order which order could not be termed as judicial
Said order was set aside and Trial Court was directed to provide an opportunity to defendant in the suit to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses and to finalize case within specified period.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.
These revision applications have filed against the judgment of the appellate Court dated 22-5-2004 by which the appeal of the applicant was dismissed by a consolidated judgment. The basic issue coming out of this revision is that the plaintiff's (respondent herein) witnesses were examined on 2-4-2001 and thereafter Court remained vacant for some time and later on side of the plaintiff was closed on 17-3-2003. An application was moved for opening the plaintiff side on 27-8-2003 but no order was passed on that application and defendant was allowed to produce his witnesses who were even cross-examined by the other side. The application for opening of plaintiff's side made under Order XVIII, rule 17, C.P.C. remained pending and no order was passed till 16-7-2003 when the learned Judge has dismissed that application with following words: "Dismissed as time-barred." Learned counsel for applicant has pointed out that he has submitted a statement and with that he has tiled diaries of the Court which depict to picture of 16-7-2003(?) diary as follows:-- "Matter called. Advocates for plaintiff and defendant present. Party called absent defendant's side. Plaintiff present. Case adjourned to 30-7-2003. (Sd.) Judge." Apparently, both the orders on the diary as well as on the application cannot be termed as judicial orders nor they tally with each other, there would have been some speaking order at least on the application under Order XVIII, rule 17, C.P.C. in terms of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act. Advocate for applicant has further pointed out certified copy of statement of respondent recorded in the Court of S.D.M. by which he has allegedly admitted some sale agreement. This document is to be examined in Court and the parties to be given proper opportunity. In the circumstances, both the orders of learned trial Courts are set aside and the civil Court is directed to provide an opportunity to the defendant in the suit to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and to finalize the case within a period of three months. H.B.T./S-28/K Order accordingly.