1992 PLP 102 (CLC)
SIRAJ DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 102 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | SIRAJ DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 102 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 102 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 102 (CLC) (SIRAJ DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Razzak for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑OXVII, R.3‑‑‑Closing of evidence without giving last opportunity to produce evidence‑‑‑Validity‑‑Provisions of OXVII, R.3, Civil Procedure Code, 1.908, do not require that before closing evidence last opportunity should be given to the party at fault. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XVII, R.3 & S.115‑‑‑Closing of evidence‑‑‑Non‑consideration of documents while dismissing suit‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑No document could be taken into account while deciding a suit unless such document was duly produced and proved in accordance with law‑‑‑No document was produced or proved by petitioner and no document was referred to of which judicial notice should have been taken by Trial Court without anything having been done by petitioner‑‑‑Even if petitioner had placed some documents on record, same could not be taken into account while deciding the suit‑‑‑Record showed that after framing of issues as many as four opportunities were allowed to petitioner to produce evidence but he failed to do so‑‑‑Petitioner being highly negligent and careless in pursuing his case, Trial Court was not to blame for closing his evidence‑‑‑Judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below were unexceptionable.
Judgment & Decree
This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the petitioner, Siraj Din, against the respondents, Lahore Development Authority and 2 others. The Civil Judge, who was seized of the suit, allowed several opportunities to the petitioner to produce evidence but he had failed to do so. His evidence was, therefore, closed and the suit dismissed. Petitioner went in appeal before an Additional District Judge but without success. Hence this civil revision.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not given last opportunity to produce evidence and as such his evidence could not be closed. Provisions of Order XVII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not require that before closing the evidence last opportunity shall be given to the party at fault. Argument addressed by the learned counsel is, therefore, misplaced and cannot be accepted.
3. The next point canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner had placed certain documents on the record but they were not taken into consideration while dismissing the suit. No document can be taken into account while deciding a suit unless it is duly produced and proved in accordance with law. Admittedly, no document was produced or proved by the petitioner. Learned counsel has not referred to any document of which judicial notice should have been taken by the learned Civil Judge without anything having been done by the petitioner. In the circumstances, even if he had placed some documents on the record, they could not be taken into account while deciding the suit. Record shows that after the framing of issues as many as four opportunities were allowed to the petitioner to produce evidence but he had failed to do so. This reveals that he was highly negligent and careless in pursuing his case and as such the learned trial Court is not to blame for closing his evidence. In this view of the matter judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below are unexceptionable.
4. Resultantly, this civil revision fails. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. AA./S‑37/L Revision dismissed.