2026 PLP 20 (YLR)
Ghulam Muhammad — Appellant Versus Rashidan Bibi and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2026 PLP 20 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Ghulam Muhammad — Appellant Versus Rashidan Bibi and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP 20 (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 2026 PLP 20 (YLR)?
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: 2026 PLP 20 (YLR) (Ghulam Muhammad — Appellant Versus Rashidan Bibi and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Younas Bhullar and Waqar Islam for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XVII, R.3
Closing right of producing evidence
Scope
Petitioner /plaintiff assailed order of closing right of producing evidence
Record clearly indicated that after framing of the issues the petitioner's evidence could not be recorded due to various factors including strikes by the local bar and the leave of the Presiding Officer, while on approximately eight dates the petitioner's witnesses failed to appear for evidence
Subsequently the petitioner was granted a final opportunity to produce evidence on next date, however, on that date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned but on next date, the defendant filed an application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C, upon which the case was adjourned
Ultimately, the application was dismissed, thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording of the petitioner's evidence
Order sheet showed that following the dismissal of the said application only two effective opportunities, spanning about fifteen days, were granted to the petitioner to produce evidence; on the third date, the Trial Court closed the petitioner's right to lead evidence
Furthermore, the interim order sheets reflected that the matter was fixed for the defendant's evidence on at least four occasions; however, the defendant failed to produce evidence on those dates
Despite said repeated defaults, no coercive or adverse orders were passed against the defendant
It appeared that the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order in a hasty and arbitrary manner, seemingly to expedite disposal of the case
Said approach, however, was not in consonance with the settled principles of law or fair trial, resulting in manifest prejudice to the petitioner
Therefore, the impugned order, was harsh and legally unwarranted in the circumstances of the case
Though the cases should be decided at the earliest without wasting time and adjournments should not be given without any plausible reason, so as to lessen the burden which was prevailing on the Courts, but at the same time it was also unjust to penalize the litigant public in a way, which has been adopted by the Trial Court
High Court set aside the impugned order, not being sustainable in the eyes of law
Resultantly, Trial Court was directed to afford one opportunity to the petitioner's side to lead its evidence subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-to be paid by the petitioner to respondents
Civil revision was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Sultan Mahmood, J.
Right of the petitioner to produce evidence in consolidate suits titled as Ghulam Muhammad v. Rasheedan Bibi and others for declaration and permanent injunction with consequential relief, instituted by him against the respondents and Mst. Rashidan Bibi and others v. Ghulam Muhammad and others for declaration, possession, cancellation of documents, permanent injunction with consequential relief, filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 3 against the respondents, was closed vide order dated 24.04.2025, which has been called into question through the instant civil revision.
2. Heard.
3. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that consolidated issues were framed on 30.07.2022. However, due to various factors including strikes by the local bar and the leave of the learned Presiding Officer, the petitioner s evidence could not be recorded. The record further reflects that on approximately eight dates, the petitioner s witnesses failed to appear for evidence. Subsequently, the matter was listed on 25.10.2024, when the petitioner was granted a final opportunity to produce evidence on 14.11.2024. However, on that date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 28.11.2024 and on said date, the defendant filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), upon which the case was adjourned to 07.01.2025. The application was ultimately dismissed on 17.02.2025. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording of the petitioner s evidence between 17.02.2025 and 03.03.2025. Order sheet shows that following the dismissal of the said application only two effective opportunities were granted to the petitioner to produce evidence. On the third date i.e., 24.04.2025, the learned trial Court closed the petitioner s right to lead evidence. Furthermore, the interim order sheets reflect that the matter was fixed for the defendant s evidence on at least four occasions; however, the defendant failed to produce evidence on those dates. Despite these repeated defaults, no coercive or adverse orders were passed against the defendant. It appears that the learned trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order in a hasty and arbitrary manner, seemingly to expedite disposal of the case. This approach, however, is not in consonance with the settled principles of law or fair trial, and results in manifest prejudice to the petitioner. The order, therefore, is harsh and legally unwarranted in the circumstances of the case.
4. There is no cavil to the proposition that cases should be decided at the earliest without wasting time and adjournments should not be given without any plausible reason, so as to lessen the burden which is prevailing on the Courts but at the same time it is also unjust to penalize the litigant public in the way, which has been observed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law; resultantly, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty thousand), which shall be paid by the petitioner to respondents before the learned trial court on the next date of hearing while allowing the instant civil revision, the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to afford one opportunity to the petitioner s side to lead his evidence and decide the suit in accordance with law. MQ/G-11/L Revision allowed.