2010 PLP 521 (MLD)
MUKHTAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus SULTAN AHMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 521 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUKHTAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus SULTAN AHMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 521 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 521 (MLD)?
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: 2010 PLP 521 (MLD) (MUKHTAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus SULTAN AHMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Shafique for Petitioner.
- Nasir Mehmood Ch. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 42
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVII, R.3
Issues were framed and the plaintiff was directed to produce evidence, but he having failed to do so despite providing him various opportunities to produce evidence, his right to produce evidence, was closed and suit was concurrently dismissed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court
Plaintiff having failed to produce evidence without any reasonable cause, whatsoever, despite ample opportunity was granted to him, his right to produce evidence had been rightly closed and suit was dismissed in accordance with law
No illegality or irregularity having been pointed out warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.
This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 27-5-2009 whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the judgment and decree, dated 2-1-2009 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis at hand are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration against the respondent which was contested. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed and the petitioner was directed to produce evidence. On the failure of the petitioner to produce evidence, his right to do 'so was closed and the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 1-2-2009. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court vide the impugned judgment and decree, dated 27-5-2009.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Record perused.
4. It is apparent from the record that the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed being barred by limitation. The appeal was accompanied by an application of section 5 of the Limitation Act and each day of delay was not explained and the appeal was dismissed.
5. Be that as it may, in the instant case, the issues were framed on 9-10-2009 and the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner for 4-12-2007 and no evidence was produced. The right of the petitioner to produce evidence was closed on 2-1-2009 by the learned trial Court and on penultimate date of hearing, the evidence of the petitioner was not available and the case was adjourned at his request; hence the provision of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. was squarely applicable. In fact even prior thereto, on several consecutive dates of hearing, the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner which was never produced. Earlier also adjournments were sought and several adjournments had been granted for the production of the evidence by the petitioner. Ample opportunity was granted to' the petitioner to produce his evidence but he failed to do without any reasonable cause whatsoever. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the right of the petitioner to produce evidence has been rightly closed by the learned trial Court and the suit was dismissed in accordance with law. No material illegality or irregularity has been pointed out warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction with the result that this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./M-629/L Petition dismissed.