2010 PLP 163 (MLD)
FAYYAZ HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus KHITIM HUSSAIN — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 163 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAYYAZ HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus KHITIM HUSSAIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 163 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 163 (MLD)?
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 163 (MLD) (FAYYAZ HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus KHITIM HUSSAIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Yousaf Zubair for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XVII, R.3
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42. & 54
Initiation of proceedings against a party under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.
Essential ingredient
Suit for declaration and permanent injunction
Suit had concurrently been dismissed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court
On adjourned date of hearing, plaintiffs did not produce their evidence
On next date of adjournment, when none appeared on behalf of. the plaintiffs, Trial Court had no option, but to proceed under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.
Opportunity for fulfilling obligation i.e. for producing evidence or conducting cross-examination or filing written statement, had to be fair and reasonable and even one or two opportunities could be sufficient
Essential ingredients for taking proceedings against a party under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. were that the date of hearing must be in the knowledge of the party and time given for doing certain act must be sufficient; and if adjournment wet; sought by a party, then there had to be a plausible explanation for such adjournment; and it would not be illegal either for the court to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff or proceed against defendants ex parte, if the court would reach a just conclusion that the concerned party was hampering the proceedings
Contention of counsel for the plaintiffs that fair opportunities were not given to the plaintiffs, was untenable and not borne out from the record
Concurrent judgments and decrees passes by the two courts below being well-reasoned and in accordance with law on the subject, called for no interference and were upheld.
Judgment & Decree
PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J.
The petitioner's suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Multan vide judgment and decree, dated 28-3-2008, where-against an appeal was preferred which too was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 25-4-2008 passed by learned Additional District, Judge, Multan, which are assailed through this revision petition.
2. It is inter alia contended that the learned Civil Judge, Multan proceeded to pass an ex parte order unjustifiably and that sufficient opportunity to defend was not allowed to the petitioners.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at quite some length and with his able assistance have minutely examined the record.
4. I find that the suit was adjourned from 20-2-2008 to 27-2-2008 on which date the petitioners did not produce their evidence. Again it was adjourned for 28-3-2008 when none appeared on behalf of the petitioners nor evidence was present. The learned civil Court, therefore, had no option but to proceed under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. question arises that as to how many opportunities are to be given to a party for fulfilling his obligations i.e. for producing evidence or conducting cross-examination or filing written statement etc. Answer to the same is that under the law the opportunity has to be fair and reasonable and to my mind even one or two opportunities could be sufficient. The essential ingredients for taking proceedings against a party under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. are that the date of hearing must be in the knowledge of the party and time given for doing certain act must be sufficient and if adjournment is sought by a party then there has to be a plausible explanation for each adjournment and it would not be illegal either for the learned Court to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff or proceed against respondents ex parte, as the case may be if the Court reaches a just conclusion that the concerned party is hampering with the proceedings, therefore, in the case in hand, argument of the learned counsel that fair opportunities were not given is untenable and not borne out of the record. I am of the considered view that the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below are well-reasoned, in accordance with law on the subject thus calls for no interference and are upheld. Resultantly this petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./F-23/L Petition dismissed.