1991 PLP 1532 (SCMR)
Mst. RAMZAN BIBI and 14 others — Petitioners Versus AHMAD DIN — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1532 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. RAMZAN BIBI and 14 others — Petitioners Versus AHMAD DIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1532 (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 1991 PLP 1532 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1532 (SCMR) (Mst. RAMZAN BIBI and 14 others — Petitioners Versus AHMAD DIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1989.
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 3-6-1986, of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 1348 of 1986).
O. XVII, R.3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Plaintiffs suit for possession and injunction dismissed for non-production of evidence
Order of dismissal of suit was also sustained by the High Court in revision
Leave to appeal was granted to examine: (i) whether Trial Court had discretion to apply provisions of O. XVII, R.3, C.P.C., a punitive provision or to adjourn the case or pass any order other than punitive; (ii) if Court had the required discretion; whether, it had been properly exercised, particularly whether the interest of minors was duly safeguarded; (iii) whether, in view of clear averments in plaint regarding record of rights showing plaintiffs ownership; and, defendant not having denied existence of such record of rights and its effect and thus having relied on his adverse possession in this behalf, could the suit be dismissed under O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C.; (iv) or, it should have been decreed on the basis that the original ownership of plaintiffs' side not having been seriously contested, defendant had failed, in the facts and circumstances of present case, to establish the plea of adverse possession; and (v) other related questions.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiff side in a suit for possession and injunction; against the dismissal of their Civil Revision, by the High Court. The petitioners amongst whom there are minors failed in the trial Court on account of the application of the punitive provisions contained under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. It was applied because on the relevant final date of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners appeared and made a statement that the petitioners being absent he was helpless and the Court might pass any order it deemed lit. As the petitioners had been afforded several opportunities to produce evidence, this fact and the statement made by the learned counsel, weighed with the learned trial Court and it dismissed the suit by applying Rule 3 of Order 17, C.P.C. After hearing the learned counsel we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, inter alia, to examine: (i), whether, the Court had discretion to apply Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C., a punitive provision or to adjourn the case or pass any order other than punitive; (ii), if the Court had the required discretion; whether, it has been properly exercised ‑‑ particularly whether the interest of the minors was duly safeguarded; (iii) whether, in view of the clear averments in the plaint regarding the record of rights showing petitioners' ownership; and, the respondent not having denied the existence of such record of rights and their effect and thus having relied on his adverse possession in this behalf, could the suit be dismissed under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C.; (iv) or, it should have been decreed on the basis that the original ownership of the petitioners' side not having been seriously contested the respondent had failed, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to establish the plea of adverse possession; and (v), other related questions. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted. Security Rs.5.000 No alienation of the property in question in the meanwhile. A.A./R‑132/S Leave granted.