1989 PLP 50 (MLD)
Mst. REHANA IRSHAD and 6 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM and 10 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 50 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Waheed, J |
| Parties | Mst. REHANA IRSHAD and 6 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM and 10 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 50 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 50 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Waheed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 50 (MLD) (Mst. REHANA IRSHAD and 6 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM and 10 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hakam Qureshi for petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑O. XVII, R.3 & 5.115‑‑Closing of evidence‑‑Date having not been fixed at the instance of petitioners, their evidence could not be closed on their failure to produce same nor case could be decided forthwith‑‑Another opportunity was allowed to petitioners to produce their evidence at their own responsibility.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel contends that the provisions of Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. could not be invoked against the petitioners as the date of 3rd of July, 1988 was A not fixed at their instance. He further states that if an opportunity is given to the petitioners, they will produce their remaining evidence on the date fixed for this purpose at their own responsibility and will not seek any further adjournment.
2. Admit. Notice.
3. At this stage Mr. Kazim Raza Shamsi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.
4. As regards respondents No. 2 to 11, it is stated by learned counsel for the parties that ex parte proceedings are being taken against them in the trial Court as they have not appeared to contest the suit in spite of service. Therefore, as pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No.1, it is not necessary to issue them notices m this revision petition in accordance with Order XLI, Rule 14(3), C.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that he has no objection to the acceptance of this revision petition and granting the petitioners one last opportunity to produce their remaining evidence in accordance with the list of witnesses filed by them in the trial Court.
6. Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court on 3rd of July, 1988 is set aside. The learned R trial Court shall fix a date for the remaining evidence of the petitioners in accordance with the list of witnesses filed by them. The petitioners shall produce their witnesses on that date at their own responsibility. They will not be granted any adjournment for this purpose.
7. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 20th of November, 1988.
8. The parties shall bear their own costs. M.Z.S./R‑122/L Revision petition accepted.