1992 PLP 212 (CLC)
ABDUL GHANI and 2 others‑‑‑Appellants, Versus ABDUL AZIZ KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 212 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, J |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI and 2 others‑‑‑Appellants, Versus ABDUL AZIZ KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 212 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 212 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 212 (CLC) (ABDUL GHANI and 2 others‑‑‑Appellants, Versus ABDUL AZIZ KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian M. Zafar Yasin for Appellants.
- Mirza Manzoor Ahmad for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.4 and 5.
- Date of hearing: 18th September, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑OXVII, R.3 & OXVI, R.7‑A‑‑‑Closing of defendants' evidence‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Adjournment of case for recording evidence of defendants' witnesses was on their request but same was occasioned due to non‑service of summons issued to their witnesses‑‑‑Trial Court's observation that defendants failed to make efforts to get their witnesses served under OXVI, R.7‑A, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was entirely based on misreading of record‑‑ Adjournment of case being not at the request of defendants, penal provision of O.XVII, R.3, Civil Procedure Code was not attracted‑‑‑Closing of defendants' evidence was thus, not warranted and not sustainable. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑O.XVII, R.3‑‑‑Closing of defendants' evidence‑‑‑Plaintiffs' affirmative evidence having not been concluded, defendants should not have been called upon to produce their evidence till such time the affirmative evidence by plaintiffs was concluded including the statement of one of plaintiffs‑‑ Procedure adopted by Trial Court for closing evidence of defendants was thus not sustainable. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑O.XVII, R.3 & 5.100‑‑‑Closing of defendants' evidence ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Exercise of discretion by Court‑‑‑Where discretion was conferred on Court to pass an order, same was not to be exercised arbitrarily and whimsically but judiciously‑‑‑Trial Court acted highly arbitrarily in applying provisions of O.XVII, R.3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for the case on previous date had not been adjourned at their request‑‑‑Order closing evidence of defendants being not sustainable was set aside‑‑‑Said order having adversely affected final judgment passed in the case by Trial Court, same was also set aside‑‑ Judgments and decrees passed by Courts below were set aside and case was remanded to Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑OXVII, R.3 & OXVI, R.7‑A‑‑‑Closing of defendants' evidence‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Adjournment of case for recording evidence of defendants' witnesses was on their request but same was occasioned due to non‑service of summons issued to their witnesses‑‑‑Trial Court's observation that defendants failed to make efforts to get their witnesses served under OXVI, R.7‑A, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was entirely based on misreading of record‑‑ Adjournment of case being not at the request of defendants, penal provision of O.XVII, R.3, Civil Procedure Code was not attracted‑‑‑Closing of defendants' evidence was thus, not warranted and not sustainable. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑O.XVII, R.3‑‑‑Closing of defendants' evidence‑‑‑Plaintiffs' affirmative evidence having not been concluded, defendants should not have been called upon to produce their evidence till such time the affirmative evidence by plaintiffs was concluded including the statement of one of plaintiffs‑‑ Procedure adopted by Trial Court for closing evidence of defendants was thus not sustainable. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑O.XVII, R.3 & 5.100‑‑‑Closing of defendants' evidence ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Exercise of discretion by Court‑‑‑Where discretion was conferred on Court to pass an order, same was not to be exercised arbitrarily and whimsically but judiciously‑‑‑Trial Court acted highly arbitrarily in applying provisions of O.XVII, R.3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for the case on previous date had not been adjourned at their request‑‑‑Order closing evidence of defendants being not sustainable was set aside‑‑‑Said order having adversely affected final judgment passed in the case by Trial Court, same was also set aside‑‑ Judgments and decrees passed by Courts below were set aside and case was remanded to Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. Mian M. Zafar Yasin for Appellants. Mirza Manzoor Ahmad for Respondents Nos.1 to
3. Nemo for Respondents Nos.4 and