2010 PLP 997 (CLC)
ASGHAR ALI — Petitioner Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE through Collector District Sargodha and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 997 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASGHAR ALI — Petitioner Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE through Collector District Sargodha and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 997 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 997 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 997 (CLC) (ASGHAR ALI — Petitioner Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE through Collector District Sargodha and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Bashir Dogar for Petitioner.
- Rafey Ahmed Khan, A.A.G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 42
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVII, R.3
From the date of framing of issues, total 38 dates were fixed for leading evidence by the plaintiff
On majority of said dates, case had to be adjourned on the request of the plaintiff for producing his evidence - with cost and also with warning, but despite that the plaintiff had failed to produce his evidence
Suit filed by the plaintiff ultimately stood dismissed
Plaintiff who pleaded that he could not produce evidence as he met a road accident, could not prove that plea as no mention of any accident was on the record
Apart from that it took almost three years and 38 adjournments and numerous on the request of the plaintiff, and particularly last three were with cost and warning, the plaintiff did not care to adduce his evidence
Suit was rightly dismissed concurrently by the two courts below and said order of dismissal could not be interfered with in revisions.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration claiming to be owner in possession of property detailed in the head note of the plaint on the basis of being a legal heir of deceased Mst. Sardaran. An other case was also filed by one Allah Dad respondent that he is legal heir of said Mst. Sardaran. Both the suits were consolidated and proceedings were carried on in the suit filed by present petitioner. Consolidated issues were framed by learned trial Court on 21-2-2004 and petitioner was called upon to lead his evidence. From the date of framing of issues till the last date i.e. 23-11-2006 when by application of provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. right of petitioner for leading evidence was closed, total 38 dates were fixed. On majority of the said dates case had to be adjourned on the request of petitioner for producing his evidence. At least on three previous dates i.e. 3-7-2006, 27-7-2006 and 3-10-2006 adjournments were granted on the request of petition for producing his evidence with cost and also with warning but despite that petitioner failed to produce his evidence and ultimately his suit was also dismissed on 23-11-2006. It was assailed by the petitioner through an appeal, which also stands dismissed on 31-5-2007. Both these judgments and decrees are being assailed through the instant civil revision.
2. It is contended that on 23-11-2006 petitioner was hospitalized on account of a road accident, therefore, could not manage to get in touch with his learned counsel. It is further submitted that on the preceding date i.e. 3-10-2006 request was not made on behalf of the present petitioner, therefore, penal action should not have been taken on the next date of hearing.
3. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. I have considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
5. Ground being urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had met a road accident, is not in line with Para 6 of the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner before learned lower part, in which it is submitted that he was sick and was hospitalized. No mention of any accident is on record. Apart from this, it took almost three years and 38 adjournments and numerous on the request of the petitioner and particularly last three with cost and warning, petitioner did not care to adduce his evidence, therefore, for reasons stated above, no ground for interference is made out. This petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./A-174/L Petition dismissed.