2008 PLP 34 (YLR)
ALLAH DITTA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 34 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Hakim Ali, J |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 34 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 34 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Hakim Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 34 (YLR) (ALLAH DITTA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Javed Majeed Ansari for Petitioner.
- Abid Hussain Bhutta and Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3
Suit for recovery of amount on basis of pro note
Plaintiff who filed suit for recovery of amount on basis of pro note produced his evidence, but defendant failed to produce his evidence on which, his right of production of evidence was closed
Counsel for plaintiff had submitted that he got no objection, if impugned order was set aside and defendant was granted one last and final opportunity to produce his evidence
Revision, in circumstances was accepted, impugned order was set aside with direction to the Trial Court to grant one last opportunity to petitioner to produce his evidence by fixing a specific date.
Judgment & Decree
SH. HAKIM ALI, J.
Muhammad Akhtar respondent, had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.75,000 on the basis of pro note and receipt dated 25-6-2004 under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. before the learned District Judge, Multan against Allah Ditta, the present petitioner. The leave was granted. Written statement was submitted by the defendant and issues were framed. Plaintiff had produced his evidence while defendant/petitioner had failed to produce his evidence, therefore, the right of production of evidence of the defendant was closed on 7-2-2007. Aggrieved from that order, the present civil revision has been filed.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff/respondent, Muhammad Akhtar submits that respondent has got no objection, if the impugned order dated 7-2-2007 is set aside and the defendant/petitioner is granted one last and final opportunity to produce his evidence for a date to be fixed by the learned trial Court. So, in these circumstances, the civil revision is accepted. The impugned order dated 7-2-2007 is set aside with direction to the learned trial Court to grant one final and last opportunity to petitioner/defendant to produce his evidence by fixing a specific date. If the petitioner failed to produce his evidence on that date, the impugned order shall resurrect. Both the parties shall appear before the learned trial Court on 29-10-2007. H.B.T./A-203/L Order accordingly.