2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)
IMAM DIN — Appellant Versus ALLAH YAR — Respondent
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Amin-ud-Din Khan, J |
| Parties | IMAM DIN — Appellant Versus ALLAH YAR — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: Amin-ud-Din Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN) (IMAM DIN — Appellant Versus ALLAH YAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Hameed for Respondent.
- 3. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Hameed, Advocate appearing on behalf of counsel for the respondent supports the judgment passed by the learned trial court.
Judgment & Decree
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.
Through this appeal appellant, who is plaintiff in a suit filed under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. for recovery of Rs:25,000/- on the basis of Promissory Note dated 7.5.2003, has challenged the judgment and decree dated 4.10.2004 whereby after closing his right to produce evidence the suit has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel argues that no proper opportunity was granted to the appellant and further that no warning was given before closing of evidence, therefore, the order is not sustainable under the law.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Hameed, Advocate appearing on behalf of counsel for the respondent supports the judgment passed by the learned trial court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. The suit was filed on 6.6.2003 on the basis of a pro note dated 7.5.2003. In the written statement it has been alleged that suit has been filed on the basis of forged pro note. The issues were framed on 5.6.2004. Despite giving 4 opportunities plaintiff failed to produce any evidence. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no warning or last opportunity was given, therefore, the order is not sustainable, I do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant as under Order 17, Rule 1 of C.P.C. learned trial court was having full jurisdiction to pass appropriate order when court order has not been complied with and no progress could be made due to the appellant/plaintiff and when no sufficient cause was shown for adjournment, the court can proceed with the suit forthwith. The light can be taken from the judgment of august Supreme Court reported as 1987 SCMR 249 Pirzada Amir Hussan etc. v. Mrs. Shamim Shah Nawaz etc.". Suit can be validly dismissed under Order XVII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. Further reliance can be placed on the judgment reported as 2002 CLC 1111 "Ghulam Qadir alias Qadir Bakhsh v. Haji Muhammad Suleman and 6 others". On none of the above three dates of hearing when adjournment was sought even no reason was given for non-production of evidence. In these circumstances, no case for interference by this Court has been made out, this appeal stands dismissed. ZC/I-29/L Appeal dismissed.