2003 PLP 2074 (YLR)
INAYAT ULLAH — Petitioner Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 2074 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Farrukh Lateef, J |
| Parties | INAYAT ULLAH — Petitioner Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2074 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 2074 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Farrukh Lateef, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 2074 (YLR) (INAYAT ULLAH — Petitioner Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Ghani for Petitioner.
- Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this civil revision are that the petitioner filed a declaratory suit which was contested by the respondent, issues were framed on 28-7-2000 and 29-9-2000 was fixed for petitioner's evidence. Evidence of the petitioner was not present on the said date and at the instance of his counsel an adjournment was granted. Thereafter eleven adjournments were granted for producing evidence and on four occasions the plaintiff was warned that it would be final opportunity. On three dates cost was also imposed on the petitioner for not producing evidence. All the aforesaid eleven adjournments were granted by the trial Court at the instance of the petitioner's counsel and ultimately his evidence was closed on 9-8-2001, and his suit was dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XVII, R.3
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42--Suit for declaration
On date fixed for evidence of plaintiff, his evidence being not present, adjournment was granted to plaintiff at his instance
Eleven adjournments were granted for production of evidence and on four occasions he was warned that it would be a final opportunity and on three dates costs were also imposed on plaintiff for not producing evidence
Despite such adjournments, plaintiff having failed to produce his evidence, his evidence was closed and his suit was dismissed
Validity-- Provisions of O. XVII, R. 3, C. P. C. were permissive and discretionary
Plaintiff having acted contumaciously by not producing evidence, it could not be deemed that discretion was exercised 6y Trial Court arbitrarily in invoking penal provisions of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.
Suit of plaintiff was rightly dismissed for want of evidence by Trial Court
Appeal against order of Trial Court was also dismissed by Appellate Court
Reasonable order passed by Appellate Court not suffering from any jurisdictional infirmity; could not be interfered with by the High Court.
S.115
Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of
Interference of High Court by way of revision with decisions regarding matters which were within discretion of Courts below, was not warranted as the same would amount to pre-empt discretion of subordinate Court-- Provisions of S.115, C.P.C. were directed against irregular exercise, non-exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction and not against conclusions of law or fact not involving question of jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Abdul Ghani for Petitioner. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this civil revision are that the petitioner filed a declaratory suit which was contested by the respondent, issues were framed on 28-7-2000 and 29-9-2000 was fixed for petitioner's evidence. Evidence of the petitioner was not present on the said date and at the instance of his counsel an adjournment was granted. Thereafter eleven adjournments were granted for producing evidence and on four occasions the plaintiff was warned that it would be final opportunity. On three dates cost was also imposed on the petitioner for not producing evidence. All the aforesaid eleven adjournments were granted by the trial Court at the instance of the petitioner's counsel and ultimately his evidence was closed on 9-8-2001, and his suit was dismissed.
2. Petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Khanewal on 6-2 2002.
3. The aforesaid orders of the trial Court and the learned District Judge, ate assailed in this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard.
5. Provisions of Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C. are permissive and discretionary. Record of trial Court indicated that petitioner had acted contumaciously as despite repeated opportunities, four warnings of last opportunities and imposition of cost thrice he failed to produce his evidence.
6. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case it cannot be deemed that discretion was exercised by the learned trial Court arbitrarily in invoking penal provisions of Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C. As there was no evidence on record, suit was rightly dismissed for want of evidence by the learned trial Court.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge, whereby appeal against judgment/decree of the trial Court was dismissed shows that it is entirely reasonable and does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity.
8. Interference by way of revision with decisions regarding matters which are within the discretion of the subordinate Courts is not warranted as it amounts to pre-empting the discretion of the subordinate Court. Moreover, section 115, C.P.C. is directed against irregular exercise, non-exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction and not against conclusions of law or fact not involving question of jurisdiction.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is hereby dismissed in limine. H.B.T./I-169/L Revision dismissed.