2003 SCMR 797 (PLP)
FATEH SHER — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 SCMR 797 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh,. Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | FATEH SHER — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 SCMR 797 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 SCMR 797 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh,. Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 SCMR 797 (PLP) (FATEH SHER — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Rasul Warraich, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th March, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 29-1-2001 passed by Laho High Court, Lahore in R. F. A. No. 509 of 20`01). -O. XVII, R. 3-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Despite many opportunities for recording of evidence, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence
Trial Court proceeded under O.XVII, R.3, C:P.C., closed the evidence and the suit was dismissed for no evidence
Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was maintained by High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction-- Validity
Order passed by Trial Court for clesing of evidence was ih accordance with law, as the same was passed on the date which was fixed on the plaintiff's request after affording him a number of opportunities for production of evidence
Dismissal of appeal by High Court by affirming the judgment and decree of Trial Court did not suffer from any illegality
Leave to appeal was refused. [p. 798] A
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement. The case was fixed for 29-2-2001 for recording his evidence who 'had earlier been given a number of opportunities. On the said date learned Presiding Officer of the Court was on leave therefore, the case was adjourned to 11-4-2001 for recording the evidence of the petitioner. On the said date the petitioner again requested for adjournment which was given to him and the case adjourned to 2-5-2001 on which date he again failed to produce evidence therefore, the trial Court proceeded to close his evidence under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. and also proceed to dismiss the suit as there was no evidence to prove the execution of the said agreement
2. The petitioner filed appeal before the High Court against the said judgment and decree. During the pendency of the appeal the respondent appeared and placed ' on record award dated 1-5-2001 delivered by the Arbitrator appointed by the parties through agreement dated 29-3-2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner got an adjournment for the purpose of contacting the petitioner in order to ascertain whether he was in the knowledge of the said award but he stated before the learned Judges on the date fixed that he was unable to contact him.
3. The learned Judges of the High Court dismissed the appeal through judgment dated 1-5-2002 on the ground that the matter had been settled by the parties through the Arbitration Agreement and the said award. We find that in the present petition, the petitioner has clearly admitted the execution of arbitration agreement on 29-3-2001 between the parties in which award was delivered
4. The learned- counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Judges of the High Court should not have dismissed the appeal on the basis of the said award but the same should have been decided on merits. We however, find that the order passed `by the learned trial Court for closing his evidence was in accordance with law, for the same was passed on the date which was fixed on the petitioner's request after affording him a number of opportunities for production of evidence. We also infer that the petitioner did not produce the evidence for the reasons that admittedly he had already executed an Arbitration. agreement on 29-3-2001.
5. Be that as it may be dismissal of appeal of the petitioner by the High Court by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality. If the petitioner has any objection against the award he may seek remedy under the Arbitration Act.
6. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court does not suffer from the illegality therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. Q. M. H. /F-65/S Petition dismissed.