1991 PLP 1935 (SCMR)
GHULAM QADIR and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. KUNDAN BIBI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1935 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. KUNDAN BIBI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1935 (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 1935 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1935 (SCMR) (GHULAM QADIR and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. KUNDAN BIBI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----O.VII, R.14 & OXIII, R.1---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-- Production of document, and summoning of evidence---Plaintiffs' grievance was that additional issues were framed on 5-3-1986 and suit was adjourned for evidence of plaintiffs to 8-3-1986 when their evidence was closed---Trial Court's order was upheld by the Appellate Court and High Court in revision---Held, plaintiffs' grievance was not well founded for they had three days time to produce the copies and summon the evidence---When plaintiffs were relying on the documents they should have filed the same alongwith the plaint as per requirement of O.VII, R.14, C.P.C. otherwise they should have produced all the documentary evidence at the first hearing of the suit as required under OXIII, R.1, C.P.C.---Case of the plaintiffs relating to mutation entries they should have obtained copies of the mutation in question before the date of hearing and filed the same in Court---Plaintiffs failed to produce the copies for about fifteen years as the suit was filed in 1971 and decided in 1986---Civil Court had the discretion to allow the plaintiffs further time, but as the High Court on remand had directed to decide the case within a specified time, it could not be deemed that the Court had exercised its discretion in any arbitrary or capricious manner in closing the plaintiffs' evidence ---Moreso, no application was filed for summoning the official witness---No case for interference with the order of High Court having been made out, leave to appeal was refused.
- Ch. Abdur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th October, 1989.
- Ch. Abdur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- 4. We have heard Ch. Abdur Rehman Advocate. His grievance is that the learned Civil Judge gave no opportunity to the petitioners to produce the certified copies of Mutation No.156 and Mutation No.181 attested on 19‑5‑1971. The petitioners' grievance is not well founded for he had three days time to produce the copies and summon the evidence on 8‑3‑1986. Further if the petitioners were relying on these documents, they should have filed the same along with the plaint as required under Order VII, rule 14, C.P.C. otherwise they should have produced all the documentary evidence at the first hearing of the suit as required under Order XIII, rule 1, C.P.C. as their case related to the mutation entries, therefore, they should have obtained copies of the mutation in question before the date of hearing and filed the same in Court. They did not produce the copies for about 15 years as the suit was filed on 5‑4‑1971 and decided in 1986. It was discretionary with the Civil Judge to allow the petitioners further time for the purpose of producing additional evidence but, in the circumstances of the case, moreso when the High Court on remand had directed to decide the suit within two months, it cannot be said that the Civil Judge exercised his discretion in any arbitrary or capricious manner in closing the evidence of the petitioners. Moreover, no application was made for summoning the Patwari as stated by the High Court.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 18-12-1988 passed in Civil Revision No.738/D/1988).
Judgment & Decree
NAIMUDDIN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 18‑12‑1988 whereby it dismissed the civil revision petition in limine in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioners filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Lodhran, for declaration that the order passed by the Revenue Officer on 19‑5‑1971 in respect of Mutation No.156 was unjustified, illegal, void and did not affect the rights of the petitioners and for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from disputing the rights and possession of the petitioners in respect of the land mentioned in the plaint. The suit was defended by the respondents. The trial Court framed a number of issues and after recording evidence dismissed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 19‑3‑1986. The petitioners filed an appeal from the judgment and decree but that too was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Multan on 12‑9‑1988 leading to the filing of the civil revision petition in the High Court which came up for preliminary hearing before the Court on 5‑11‑1988. It was urged by the petitioners before the High Court that they were not given proper opportunity to lead their evidence on additional issues No.3 and 3‑A, which were as follows:‑
"
3. Whether the plaintiffs (petitioners) are owners in possession of the suit land and the order of the Revenue Officer dated 19‑5‑1971 on Mutation No.156 is illegal, void and ineffective over the rights of the plaintiffs? 3‑A. Whether the exchange Mutation No.181 dated 19‑5‑1971 in favour of Muhammad Zafar Hussain, defendant No.2 (respondent No.2) is not effective over the rights of the plaintiffs? It was further urged before the High Court that the additional issues were framed on 5‑3‑1986 and the suit was adjourned for evidence of the plaintiffs to 8‑3‑1986 when their evidence was closed. In rebuttal, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the trial Court was directed by the High Court by its order dated 20‑1‑1986 that the suit should be decided within two months and that the issues were re‑cast in order to fully cover the controversy between the parties otherwise there was in fact no difference. The High Court was not inclined to afford another opportunity to the petitioners for the following reasons recorded in the impugned order:‑
"(i) Firstly, the petitioners did not even care to put a petition for summoning Patwari, who was the only witness which was to be examined by them to prove the issues as recast. This fact is clear from the order dated 8th of March, 1986. This negligence in face of the direction of this Court to decide the suit within two months cannot be ignored; (ii) secondly, the petitioners were fully aware of the direction of this Court still they did not act promptly to produce the evidence; and (iii) thirdly, this ground has not been urged in the revision petition."
3. On merits also the High Court, relying on the statements of Bakhsh Ali P.W.4 and Ghulam Qadir (petitioner) P.W.5 held that they were sufficient to non‑suit the petitioners.
4. We have heard Ch. Abdur Rehman Advocate. His grievance is that the learned Civil Judge gave no opportunity to the petitioners to produce the certified copies of Mutation No.156 and Mutation No.181 attested on 19‑5‑1971. The petitioners' grievance is not well founded for he had three days time to produce the copies and summon the evidence on 8‑3‑1986. Further if the petitioners were relying on these documents, they should have filed the same along with the plaint as required under Order VII, rule 14, C.P.C. otherwise they should have produced all the documentary evidence at the first hearing of the suit as required under Order XIII, rule 1, C.P.C. as their case related to the mutation entries, therefore, they should have obtained copies of the mutation in question before the date of hearing and filed the same in Court. They did not produce the copies for about 15 years as the suit was filed on 5‑4‑1971 and decided in 1986. It was discretionary with the Civil Judge to allow the petitioners further time for the purpose of producing additional evidence but, in the circumstances of the case, moreso when the High Court on remand had directed to decide the suit within two months, it cannot be said that the Civil Judge exercised his discretion in any arbitrary or capricious manner in closing the evidence of the petitioners. Moreover, no application was made for summoning the Patwari as stated by the High Court.
5. Therefore, no case for inheritance with the order of the High Court is made out. We accordingly refuse leave. A.A./G-248/S Leave refused.