1992 PLP 1404 (MLD)
ALLAH YAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1404 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALLAH YAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1404 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1404 (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: 1992 PLP 1404 (MLD) (ALLAH YAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Allah Yar Khan for Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑OXVII, R.3‑‑‑Suit adjourned for evidence of defendants at their request‑‑ Defendant's failure to produce evidence on adjourned date resulted in closing their case‑‑‑Trial Court had jurisdiction to close defendant's evidence for their failure to produce evidence on adjourned date of hearing which had been granted at their request‑‑‑Order of Trial Court closing defendant's evidence thus could not be said to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Malik Allah Yar Khan for Petitioners. Facts giving rise to this writ petition are that respondent No3, Ahmad Yar, filed a suit against the petitioners, Allah Yar and others, for partition of certain land and for grant for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from changing the character of the said land or making any construction thereon. The suit was fixed for 11th November, 1991 for evidence of the petitioners when they failed to produce their evidence. The Civil Judge, who was seized of the suit, therefore, closed their case, under Order XVII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. His order in this regard was challenged by the petitioners by filing revision petition before an Additional District Judge' but without success. Hence this Constitutional petition.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to close evidence of the petitioners and, therefore, his order in this behalf is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
3. It is not disputed that the suit had been adjourned to 11th November, 1991 for the evidence of the petitioners at their request. It is also not denied that their evidence. was not there on the appointed day. The learned Civil Judge had therefore, jurisdiction to close the petitioners' evidence. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that his order is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
4. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. AA./A‑96/L Petition dismissed.