2007 PLP 65 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SARWAR — Appellant Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 65 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SARWAR — Appellant Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 65 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 65 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 65 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SARWAR — Appellant Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Mudassar Bodla for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The appellant/plaintiff. impugns the judgment and decree dated 20-9-1995, whereby a suit tiled by him under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. for recovery of Rs.33,000 has been dismissed. The learned trial Court has invoked the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. to foreclose the right of the appellant to lead evidence and as a consequence, the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed for want of evidence.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the order sheet. From the same, it is clear that although issues were framed on 14-5-1994 and the case was repeatedly adjourned for the evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not at fault. Either the presiding officer was absent on the dates fixed or the lawyers were on strike or on two occasions request for adjournment was made by learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.
3. On 27-6-1995, which was the date prior to the dismissal of the suit, the Bar had declared a strike due to the imposition of the excise duty. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant contends there was no occasion to invoke the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. and to foreclose the appellant's right to lead evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent was not in a position to controvert the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the circumstances discussed above, I am not in any doubt that the learned trial Court was not justified in invoking the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C., and as a consequence, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff.
5. An the foregoing circumstances, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 20-9-1995 are set aside. Since both parties are represented, they are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif on 20-7-2004. On that date, the learned District Judge may either proceed in the matter himself or entrust the case to a learned Additional District Judge for decision afresh. H.B.T./M-509/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.