2000 PLP 2635(2) (YLR)
Malik KHURSHID — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 2635(2) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | Malik KHURSHID — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 2635(2) (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 2635(2) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 2635(2) (YLR) (Malik KHURSHID — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Saeed Akhtar for Petitioner.
- M.A. Zafar and Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
O. XVII, R.3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Defendant/petitioner having failed to produce evidence despite availing about three to four opportunities including last opportunity granted to hint to produce evidence, his evidence was closed under O. XVIl, R. 3, C. P. C.
Defendant/ petitioner had contended that on the date when his evidence was closed he was sick and could not appear before the Court
When the case was called and order closing evidence was passed by Trial Court, fact of sickness was not brought to the notice of Court--Such plea being an afterthought evidence of defendant/petitioner was rightly closed
In absence of any illegality or jurisdictional error, order of Courts below could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar for Petitioner. M.A. Zafar and Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th December, 1999, Respondent No.3, tiled a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs.12,000, inter alia against the present petitioner. This suit was resisted by the defendants, Issues were framed; parties were put to trial; plaintiff produced and completed his evidence and the case was fixed for the evidence of petitioner- defendant, who availed 3/4 opportunities to do the needful and was even granted last opportunity, however, he could not produce the evidence, which was closed under provision of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., vide order, dated 5-4-1983. Against the above, petitioner has tiled revision before the learned Additional District Judge, which has been dismissed on 26-4-1983, Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on the date when the petitioner's evidence was closed, petitioner was sick and could not appear before the Court. I am afraid that at the time when the case was called and impugned order by the trial Court was passed, no such fact was brought to the notice of the Court. This seems to be the result of an afterthought. No illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders have been shown, calling for any interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./K-39/L Petition dismissed.