Delay in Judicial Proceedings and Failure to Produce Evidence.
 |
لاہور ھائیکورٹ نےنچلی عدالتوں کا فیصلہ برقرار رکھتے ہوۓ سول رویژن اسلیےخارج کر دی شہادت پیش کرنے کے بے شمار مواقع دینے کے بعد ٹرائل کورٹ نےآرڈر XVII رول 3 کے تحت خارج کافیصلہ سنایا تھا- |
عدالتی پس منظر
شواہد کی عدم فراہمی اور قانونی کارروائی
ضابطہ کارروائی کے اطلاق
عدالتی فیصلہ اور سفارشات
اہم سبق
اس کے وکیل نے بار بار سماعت کی تاریخیں تبدیل کرنے کی درخواست کی اور کبھی گواہ پیش نہ کیے،
تنبیہ کی اور جرمانہ
خلاصہ
Must read Judgement
2024 C L C 29
[Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench)]
Before Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J
ATTA ELAHI----Petitioner
Versus
ALLAH BACHAYA and others----Respondents
Civil Revision No.544-D of 2020, heard on 1st April, 2022.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. XVII, R. 3---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Party failing to produce evidence after availing numerous opportunities---Suit of the petitioner was dismissed concurrently by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court under O. XVII, R. 3 of C.P.C---Validity---Order sheet reflected that the issues were framed on 15.04.2017 and the provisions of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. were invoked on 24.06.2019---In that period, spreading over two years, the case was fixed for numerous dates of hearing, out of which about seventeen adjournments were sought by the petitioner's side for the purposes of examination of their witnesses---Hardly, any adjournment was sought by the respondent side---On several hearings not just warnings were given but thrice the cost was imposed on the petitioner for failure to examine the witnesses---To delay the matter the petitioner and her lawyer had adopted a strategy whereby on some dates of hearing the counsel absented himself and whenever he was available, the witnesses were not present---Said fact left the Trial Court with barely any alternative but to proceed and decide the case as per law---Trial Court before invoking the provisions of O.XVII, R.3 of the Code and passing the judgment had already taken excessive precautions and granted more than essential opportunities to the petitioner---Petitioner failed to make out any case of want of exercise of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction or illegality requiring interference---Civil revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Syed Tasleem Ahmad Shah v. Sajwala Khan and others 1985 SCMR 585; Muhammad Aslam v. Nazir Ahmad 2008 SCMR 942; Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer-ud-Din and others 2015 SCMR 1401; Mst. Sadia Jamshaid v. Province of Punjab and another 2020 CLC 1972 and Brojendra Nath Ganguly v. Promatha Bhusan Dev and 3 others AIR 1933 Calcutta 412 ref.
Syed Tahir Hussain Mehmoodi and others v. Agha Syed Liaquat Ali and others 2014 SCMR 637; Moon Enterprises CNG Station, Rawalpindi v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited through General Manager, Rawalpindi and another 2020 SCMR 300 Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer-ud-Din and others 2015 SCMR 1401 rel.
Sardar Muhammad Akram Balouch for Petitioner.
Ahmad Mansoor Chishti for Respondent