2008 PLP 1335 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAHANZEB KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1335 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAHANZEB KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1335 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1335 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1335 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAHANZEB KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.K. Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th July, 2004.
- 2. Learned counsel for petitioner, inter alia, contended that on 15th July, 2002, case was not adjourned with direction to petitioner-defendant to produce evidence, therefore, on the following date i.e. 3rd July, 2002, learned trial Court had no occasion to proceed against the petitioner under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. He also contended that in view of the judgment reported in the case of Ghulam Rasool v. Rai Ghulam Mustafa and others 1993 SCMR 2026 and Gul Hassan & Co. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 1996 SCMR 237 even if the Court had decided to close the evidence of the petitioner but it had a legal obligation to give opportunity to the petitioner of recording his own statement. Learned counsel further contended that besides it as far as promissory note is concerned, it was also not admissible because in the written statement the petitioner has raised a specific objection regarding its validity on the ground that it is without consideration. To substantiate his plea he stated that the plaintiff who had statedly given cash of Rs.16,00,000 had failed to prove before the Court that for what purpose amount was given to petitioner, therefore, according to him for such reason the plea taken by the petitioner-defendant in the written statement seems to be correct.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment, dated 15-6-2004 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in R.F.A. No.287 of 2002).
O. XVII, R.3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Contentions of petitioner were that case having not been adjourned with direction to petitioner to produce evidence, on following date Trial Court had no occasion to proceed against him under O. XVII, R.3, C.P.C. and that even if the Court had decided to close evidence of petitioner, it had a legal obligation to give opportunity to petitioner of recording his own statement
Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contentions
Execution proceedings, pending decision of appeal arising out of petition, would remain suspended and security, which had already been furnished by petitioner, while obtaining leave to appeal, would remain intact till decision of appeal for the purpose of satisfying the decree. Ghulam Rasool v. Rai Ghulam Mustafa and others 1993 SCMR 2026 and Gul Hassan & Co. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 1996 SCMR 237 ref.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15h June, 2004 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan whereby R.F.A. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner, inter alia, contended that on 15th July, 2002, case was not adjourned with direction to petitioner-defendant to produce evidence, therefore, on the following date i.e. 3rd July, 2002, learned trial Court had no occasion to proceed against the petitioner under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. He also contended that in view of the judgment reported in the case of Ghulam Rasool v. Rai Ghulam Mustafa and others 1993 SCMR 2026 and Gul Hassan & Co. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 1996 SCMR 237 even if the Court had decided to close the evidence of the petitioner but it had a legal obligation to give opportunity to the petitioner of recording his own statement. Learned counsel further contended that besides it as far as promissory note is concerned, it was also not admissible because in the written statement the petitioner has raised a specific objection regarding its validity on the ground that it is without consideration. To substantiate his plea he stated that the plaintiff who had statedly given cash of Rs.16,00,000 had failed to prove before the Court that for what purpose amount was given to petitioner, therefore, according to him for such reason the plea taken by the petitioner-defendant in the written statement seems to be correct.
3. After hearing the learned counsel we grant leave to appeal to consider the above contentions. The execution proceedings, pending decision of appeal arising out of this petition, shall remain suspended and the security, which has already been furnished by the petitioner-defendant, while obtaining leave to appeal, shall remain intact till the decision of the appeal for the purpose of satisfying the decree. Leave to appeal granted. H.B.T./M-215/SC Leave granted.