1994 PLP 553 (MLD)
SULTAN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 553 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SULTAN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 553 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 553 (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: 1994 PLP 553 (MLD) (SULTAN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nafeer A. Malik for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
OXVII, R.3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of
Petitioner had failed to produce evidence despite numerous opportunities were granted to them-- Evidence of petitioners was closed by Court and their prayer for grant of opportunity to produce additional evidence, was also rejected
Whether or not, in circumstances, Trial Court should have allowed one more opportunity to a party for production of additional evidence, was a matter which could hardly be gone into by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction
Refusal on part of Trial Court to grant another chance to petitioners, neither being fanciful nor arbitrary, order of Trial Court, could not be interfered with by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
During the course of hearing of the civil suit, vide order, dated 14-10-1992 learned Civil Judge, Shorkot, -has rejected the prayer of the petitioners for grant oaf an opportunity to produce two witnesses namely Muhammad Murad and Ahmad. The learned trial Court held that numerous opportunities had been granted to the petitioners but they failed to fully avail of the same and had been producing evidence piecemeal. It was found that there was no. justification for granting further adjournments to the petitioners, consequently, as mentioned above, closure was applied to their evidence on 14-10-1992. The revision filed by the petitioners failed before the learned Additional District Judge. Hence their writ petition.
2. Whether or not, in the given circumstances, the trial Court was inclined to allow one more opportunity to a party for production of additional evidence is a matter, which can be hardly gone into by this Court in writ jurisdiction. It is not denied that prior to 14-10-1992, the petitioners had been p granted number of opportunities to lead evidence. Refusal on the part of the learned trial Court to grant yet another chance to the petitioners in this regard, in my view, is neither fanciful nor arbitrary. No justification is made out for interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction.
3. Dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S-229/L, Petition dismissed.