1986 PLP 1074 (CLC)
Mst. ZAINAB BIBI alias JANIA‑‑Petitioner Versus KHUDA BAKHSH and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1074 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gul Zarin Kiani, J |
| Parties | Mst. ZAINAB BIBI alias JANIA‑‑Petitioner Versus KHUDA BAKHSH and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1074 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1074 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Gul Zarin Kiani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1074 (CLC) (Mst. ZAINAB BIBI alias JANIA‑‑Petitioner Versus KHUDA BAKHSH and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Nazir Muslim for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑O.XVII, r.3‑‑Non‑production of evidence‑‑Dismissal of suit‑‑Pardah -observing lady‑‑Quantum of indulgence‑‑Two adjounments granted to plaintiff for production of evidence‑‑Plaintiff taking no steps to produce evidence, nor appearing in Court‑‑Court, held, would be justified to shut evidence of such plain tiff‑‑Pardah‑observing lady would not be entitled to be differently treated and for greater indulgence in prosecution of pre‑emption claim.‑‑[Pre‑emption]. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑
0. III, r. 1‑‑Counsel and client‑‑Duty of‑‑Record showing that despite absence of pre‑emptor, counsel had been requesting Court to grant adjournments for production of evidence‑‑Counsel, held, would not be deemed negligent or guilty of omission in performance of professional duties.‑‑[Counsel and client]. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑
0. XVII, rr. 2 & 3‑‑Failure in producing evidence‑‑Effect‑‑Where pre‑emptor failed to produce evidence to discharge burden of proof, despite opportunity afforded suit, held, could not be adjourned for such evidence ad infinitum‑‑Adjournment of suit despite recalcitrant attitude of litigant would be neither proper nor legal‑‑Provisions of O.XVII, r. 3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 would envisage situation where party to whom time had been granted for production of evidence or to cause attendance of witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to further progress of suit, fails in that respect and Court would, notwithstanding such default, proceed to decide suit forthwith‑ Grant or refusal of adjournment, however, would be within discretion of Court.‑‑[Evidence]. Gopi Kisan v. Ramu and another A I R 1964 Raj. 147 rel. I L R 3 Raj. 798 and 1953 Raj. L W 365 ref. (d) Administration of justice‑‑ ‑‑‑ Delay‑‑Duty of Court to avoid delay in decisions‑‑Court's duty, held, would be to check and frustrate tendencies on parts of litigants to cause delays and unnecessarily prolong ' discretion would have to be regulated by relevant and proper considerations.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑
0. III, r. 1‑‑Counsel and client‑‑Duty of‑‑Record showing that despite absence of pre‑emptor, counsel had been requesting Court to grant adjournments for production of evidence‑‑Counsel, held, would not be deemed negligent or guilty of omission in performance of professional duties.‑‑[Counsel and client]. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑
0. XVII, rr. 2 & 3‑‑Failure in producing evidence‑‑Effect‑‑Where pre‑emptor failed to produce evidence to discharge burden of proof, despite opportunity afforded suit, held, could not be adjourned for such evidence ad infinitum‑‑Adjournment of suit despite recalcitrant attitude of litigant would be neither proper nor legal‑‑Provisions of O.XVII, r. 3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 would envisage situation where party to whom time had been granted for production of evidence or to cause attendance of witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to further progress of suit, fails in that respect and Court would, notwithstanding such default, proceed to decide suit forthwith‑ Grant or refusal of adjournment, however, would be within discretion of Court.‑‑[Evidence]. Gopi Kisan v. Ramu and another A I R 1964 Raj. 147 rel. I L R 3 Raj. 798 and 1953 Raj. L W 365 ref. (d) Administration of justice‑‑ ‑‑‑ Delay‑‑Duty of Court to avoid delay in decisions‑‑Court's duty, held, would be to check and frustrate tendencies on parts of litigants to cause delays and unnecessarily prolong ' discretion would have to be regulated by relevant and proper considerations. Mian Nazir Muslim for Petitioner.