1987 PLP 952 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 952 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 952 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 952 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 952 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1987.1
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 22‑5‑1985 in Civil Revision No.1054 of 1985). ‑‑‑O.XVII, R.3‑‑Failure to produce evidence‑‑Ex parte proceedings, setting aside of‑‑Petitioner plaintiff failing to lead evidence in rebuttal of respondent‑defendant for three years despite many opportunities given to him‑‑Trial Court, held, justified in closing his evidence and setting aside ex parte order against respondent.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑O.XVII, R.3‑‑Failure to produce evidence‑‑Ex parte proceedings, setting aside of‑‑Petitioner plaintiff failing to lead evidence in rebuttal of respondent‑defendant for three years despite many opportunities given to him‑‑Trial Court, held, justified in closing his evidence and setting aside ex parte order against respondent. M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1987.1 SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑On 18‑5‑1981 the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of a shop. Nazir Hussain, now dead, was the sole defendant. The summons was issued to him for 6‑6‑1981. On that day he did not appear in the Court. The learned Judge found from the report of the process‑server that he had been served in person. Accordingly, he directed that ex parte proceedings be taken against him. The case was then adjourned to 25‑6‑1981. Three days before this date, Nazir Hussain applied for setting‑aside of the ex parte proceedings on the ground that he had not received any summons. This application was opposed by the petitioner. Consequently, the learned trial Court framed an issue to the effect whether the service upon Nazir Hussain was fictitious. Nazir Hussain concluded his evidence on this issue on 13‑5‑1982. The proceedings were then adjourned to different dates over a period of about three years for the evidence of the petitioner. He did not care to lead his evidence during all this period. Ultimately, on 4‑5‑1985 the trial Court closed his evidence, decided the issue in favour of Nazir Hussain and set‑aside the order with regard to the holding of ex parte proceedings. The petitioner challenged the order of the trial Court in revision before the High Court. His revision petition was dismissed. He now 'seeks leave tc appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is stated that the learned trial Court had not given the petitioner sufficient opportunity to lead his evidence in rebuttal to that led by Nazir Hussain. We find no merit in this contention. The petitioner had about three years to produce his evidence. No greater indulgence could be shown to him, He failed to take advantage of the many opportunities given to him in this regard. The learned trial Court was, therefore, fully justified in closing his evidence. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M.I. /M‑71/S Petition dismissed.