Where the Court has passed an order
granting the last opportunity, it has not only
passed a judicial order but also made a
promise to the parties to the lis that no
further adjournments will be granted for any reason .
 |
| Delay in Evidence. |
یہ لاہور ہائی
کورٹ کے ایک فیصلے کا مکمل متن ہے، جو ایک اپیل (R.F.A. No.11082 of 2025) کے حوالے سے ہے، جس میں ڈاکٹر سامعہ الطاف نے لاہور یونیورسٹی آف مینجمنٹ سائنسز (LUMS) کے خلاف ہرجانے کا مقدمہ دائر کیا تھا۔
خلاصۂ فیصلہ:
- درخواست گزار (ڈاکٹر سامعہ الطاف) نے 6 کروڑ 70 لاکھ روپے ہرجانے کے لیے سول عدالت میں مقدمہ دائر کیا تھا، لیکن وہ مقررہ مواقع پر شواہد پیش نہ کر سکیں۔
- عدالت نے متعدد بار موقع فراہم کیا اور آخر میں متنبہ کیا کہ اگر شواہد پیش نہ کیے گئے تو ان کا حقِ شہادت ختم کر دیا جائے گا۔
- مقررہ تاریخوں پر بھی شہادت پیش نہ کرنے پر ٹرائل کورٹ نے آرڈر XVII رول 3 سی پی سی کے تحت مقدمہ خارج کر دیا۔
- سیشن کورٹ میں اپیل بھی واپس لے لی گئی، کیونکہ دعوے کی رقم سیشن عدالت کی حد سے زیادہ تھی۔
- ہائی کورٹ نے بھی یہی مؤقف اپنایا کہ درخواست گزار کو کافی مواقع فراہم کیے گئے تھے، لیکن وہ شواہد پیش کرنے میں ناکام رہیں۔
- ہائی کورٹ نے اپیل کو ناقابلِ سماعت قرار دیتے ہوئے خارج کر دیا۔
قانونی نکات:
- عدالت نے آرڈر XVII رول 3 سی پی سی کی وضاحت کی، جس کے مطابق اگر کسی فریق کو مہلت دی گئی ہو اور وہ پھر بھی شواہد پیش نہ کرے تو عدالت فوری طور پر فیصلہ کر سکتی ہے۔
- سپریم کورٹ کے Moon Enterprises CNG Station اور Duniya Gul کیسز کے فیصلے بطور نظیر پیش کیے گئے، جن میں کہا گیا کہ اگر کسی کو آخری موقع کے ساتھ تنبیہ دی گئی ہو، تو عدالت کو اپنے فیصلے پر سختی سے عمل کرنا چاہیے۔
- سپریم کورٹ کے ایک اور فیصلے (PLD 2024 SC 887) کا حوالہ دیا گیا، جس میں کہا گیا کہ عدالتی کارروائی میں غیر ضروری التوا عدالتی نظام پر بوجھ ڈالنے اور انصاف میں تاخیر کا سبب بنتے ہیں۔
فیصلہ کا نتیجہ:
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے اس اپیل کو ابتدائی سماعت میں ہی ناقابلِ سماعت قرار دے کر خارج کر دیا اور کوئی اضافی جرمانہ نہیں لگایا۔
قانونی معاملات پر بلاگ کے لیے تجاویز:
- اس فیصلے پر ایک تفصیلی مضمون لکھ کر وضاحت کریں کہ آرڈر XVII رول 3 سی پی سی کب اور کیسے لاگو ہوتا ہے۔
- عدالتی التوا (adjournments) کے قانونی اثرات پر ایک معلوماتی پوسٹ بنائیں۔
- کلائنٹس کو کیس کی تیاری اور شہادت کی اہمیت سے آگاہ کرنے کے لیے ایک گائیڈ تیار کریں۔
یہ فیصلہ قانونی ماہرین، وکلاء اور سائلین کے لیے انتہائی اہم ہے، کیونکہ یہ عدالتوں میں غیر ضروری تاخیر کے نتائج کو واضح کرتا ہے۔
FORM No. HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
R.F.A. No.11082 of 2025
Dr. Samia Altaf Versus Lahore University of
Management Sciences etc.
Sr. No. of order/
proceeding
Date of order/
Proceeding
Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties of counsel,
where necessary
24.2.2025
Hafiz Rehman Aziz, Advocate for appellant.
This regular first appeal under section 96 read
with Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
(CPC) has been preferred against the order dated
18.11.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Lahore,
whereby suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was
dismissed under Order XVII rule 3 of CPC.
2.
The facts culminating into the impugned order
and decree emanate from the suit for recovery of
damages of Rs.6,70,00,000/- filed by the appellant
against the respondents/defendants in which notices
were issued to them. The respondents/ defendants
entered appearance and contested the suit by filing their
written statement while raising certain legal as well as
factual objections. Out of divergent pleadings of the
parties, the following issues were framed on 28.4.2023:-
1.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree
of recovery of damages of Rs.670,00,000/-
against the defendants?OPP.
2.
Whether suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous
and baseless and liable to be dismissed with
special costs under Section 35-A CPC?OPD.
3.
Relief.
R.F.A. No.11082 of 2025
-2-
The parties were directed to produce their respective
evidence. The appellant could not produce evidence
before the trial court despite the various opportunities,
warnings and cost, thereafter, her suit was dismissed
under Order XVII rule 3 CPC vide order dated
18.11.2024 (impugned order). The appellant preferred
an appeal before District Judge, Lahore, assailing the
impugned order but the same was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 14.1.2025 in order to avail
proper remedy before appropriate forum as value of the
suit exceeds from the jurisdiction of the District Court.
Hence, the instant appeal.
3.
We have heard the arguments of learned counsel
for the parties and perused the available record as well
as have minutely gone through the impugned order.
4.
Precisely, the above mentioned issues were
framed by the trial court on 28.4.2023 and lists of
witnesses were submitted on 05.5.2023 from both
parties and the case was adjourned for evidence of the
appellant on 06.6.2023. Thereafter, the case kept on
adjourning on various reasons including strike of
lawyers and leave of learned Presiding Officer. On
12.6.2024 at the request of the appellant the case was
adjourned for evidence for 15.7.2024. On the said date,
evidence of the appellant was not produced and at her
R.F.A. No.11082 of 2025
-3-
request the case was adjourned for recording evidence
of appellant with the specific assertion that if evidence
would not be produced on the next date of hearing, right
to produce evidence will be closed. On the next date i.e.
10.9.2024, the appellant being in attendance again
requested for adjournment to produce evidence and in
the interest of justice last and final opportunity was
granted with the warning that if evidence would not be
produced her right to produce evidence will be struck
off while securing the signatures and thumb impression
of the appellant on the order sheet. Despite of being
warned previously she did not produce any evidence on
the consecutive dates of hearing i.e. 08.10.2024 and
28.10.2024. The learned
counsel for the
respondents/defendants raised objection but the trial
court granted last opportunity on 28.10.2024 to the
appellant/plaintiff to produce evidence by imposing cost
of Rs.500/- with the clear-cut warning and specific
order that if evidence would not be produced on the
next date her right to produce evidence will be closed.
On 18.11.2024, the appellant again prayed for an
adjournment to produce evidence which was
vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the
respondents/defendants and as a result thereof suit of
R.F.A. No.11082 of 2025
-4-
the appellant was dismissed under Order XVII Rule 3
CPC through impugned order.
5.
Succinctly, the case has been adjourning for
recording evidence of the appellant till 18.11.2024 for
more than 1 ½ year after framing of issues. The
appellant availed sufficient opportunities for producing
and recording of her evidence but she remained unable
to do the same. The trial court granted ample
opportunities even absolute last and final opportunity
was granted to her with the warning i.e. if evidence
would not be produced her right to produce evidence
will be closed and before passing impugned order cost
was imposed in presence of the appellant with the
warning supra. During this span statement of even a
single witness could not be recorded. No other option
was left with the trial court except to invoke the penal
jurisdiction of Order XVII rule 3 CPC which is
reproduced for ready reference as under:-
3. Court may proceed notwithstanding either
party fails to produce evidence, etc.-Where
any party to a suit to whom time has been
granted fails to produce his evidence, or to
cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to
perform any other act necessary to the
further progress of the suit, for which time
has been allowed, the Court may,
notwithstanding such default, proceed to
decide the suit forthwith.”
From the bare perusal of above facts and referred
provisions of law it becomes crystal clear that the trial
R.F.A. No.11082 of 2025
-5-
court ordered a specific warning and imposition of cost
therefore once the final opportunity was granted along
with a clear warning, the court must enforce its order
strictly and without exception. The August Supreme
Court of Pakistan in a case reported as ‘Moon
Enterpriser CNG Station, Rawalpindi Vs. Sui Northern
Gas Pipelines Limited through General Manager,
Rawalpindi and another” (2020 SCMR 300) held as
under:-
“6.---Where the Court has passed an order
granting the last opportunity, it has not only
passed a judicial order but also made a
promise to the parties to the lis that no
further adjournments will be granted for any
reason. The Court must enforce its order and
honour its promise. The order to close the
right to produce evidence must automatically
follow failure to produce evidence despite
last opportunity coupled with a warning.”
6.
Matter can be examined from another angle, the
litigation remained pending before the trial court for
almost more than three years and the other party kept on
facing the agony of the trial for such a long period.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the case law
reported as ‘Duniya Gul and another Vs. Niaz
Muhammad and others’ (PLD 2024 Supreme Court
672) wherein it has been held as under:-
“7.---In our view, it is imperative for the
court to exercise vigilance and refrain from
granting adjournments so liberally and
without any compelling reasons. Such a
cautious approach is necessary to prevent
abuse of the legal system, ensure a fair and
timely resolution of cases, and optimize the R.F.A. No.11082 of 2025
-6-
use of judicial resources. In this regard, the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("C.P.C.")
under Order XVII, Rule 3, empowers the
court to proceed to decide the suit forthwith
if a party, to whom time has been granted,
fails to produce evidence, secure the
attendance of witnesses, or perform any
other act necessary for the further progress
of the suit. For convenience, the said Rule 3
is reproduced hereunder for ease of
reference:
"3. Court may proceed notwithstanding
either party fails to produce evidence, etc:
Where any party to a suit to whom time has
been granted fails to produce his evidence,
or to cause the attendance of his witnesses,
or to perform any other act necessary to the
further progress of the suit, for which time
has been allowed, the Court may,
notwithstanding each default, proceed to
decide the suit forthwith.
"8.--Recently, the above provision of law was
thoroughly considered and deliberated upon
by this Court in the case of Moon
Enterpriser CNG Station, Rawalpindi v. Sui
Northern Gas Pipelines Limited through
General Manager, Rawalpindi, and another
(2020 SCMR 300). The Court, after
considering the case law available on the
subject, held that the following two
conditions must be satisfied before applying
the above penal provision to close the right
of a party to produce evidence:
i.
that time must have been granted at
the request of a party to the suit to
adduce evidence with a specific
warning that said opportunity will be
the last and failure to adduce
evidence would lead to closure of the
right to produce evidence; and
ii.
that the same party on the date which
was fixed as the last opportunity fails
to produce its evidence.
9……..
10. It is relevant to observe here that when
the last opportunity to produce evidence is
granted and the party has been duly warned
of the consequences, the court must execute
its order consistently and strongly, without
exceptions. Such a measure would not only
realign the system and reaffirm the authority
of the law but also curb the trend of seeking
multiple adjournments on frivolous grounds,
which serve to needlessly prolong and delay
proceedings without valid or legitimate
justification. Moreover, when the court
issues an order providing the final chance, it
not only issues a judicial order but also
R.F.A. No.11082 of 2025
-7-
extends a commitment to the parties that no
further adjournments will be permitted for
any reason. The court must stand by its
order and uphold its commitment, leaving no
room or option for any alternative action.
7.
The appellant could not produce her evidence
before the trial court despite availing reasonable
opportunities. The lis was prolonged on one pretext or
the other despite clear orders of the trial court. In such
manner the cases must be decided promptly which
causes heavy backlogs of controversies between the
parties, otherwise this amounts to abuse of legal system
and a hurdle in fair and timely disposal of cases. The
August Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as
Lutfullah Virk Vs. Muhammad Aslam Sheikh (PLD
2024 Supreme Court 887) observed as under:-
“7.---It is unfortunate that adjournments
have become a plague for the country's
justice system. On 31 December 2023, a net
pendency of 2.26 million cases was reported
in the country and 1.86 million of the cases
out of the total pendency, which is around
82%, are pending adjudication before the
District Judiciary and despite this mammoth
pendency, which undoubtedly has only
grown since 31 December 2023, the
adjournment culture continues unabated -
which robs litigants of the right to speedy
justice and further exacerbates the inefficient
judicial system crisis. The failure of the
courts to deal promptly with backlogs
involves very human consequences:
controversies are prolonged; hard feelings
emphasized; families suffer privation from
their inability to obtain relief. As a result,
people seeking relief become embittered and
hate the courts and the law because the legal
profession has not lived up to its
responsibilities in a field where its
responsibilities are primary and almost
exclusive.”
"8…..There is a prevalent and concerning
trend of frequent adjournment requests in
R.F.A. No.11082 of 2025
-8-
lower courts, which amounts to an abuse of
the process of the court. This practice has
significantly contributed to a substantial
backlog of litigation in the lower judiciary. It
is imperative that we actively discourage this
behavior to ensure the prompt delivery of
justice to the citizens of Pakistan. By curbing
the routine use of adjournments, we can
expedite legal proceedings, alleviate the
burden on the lower judiciary, and ultimately
enhance the efficiency of the judicial system.
This, in turn, will contribute to a more timely
and effective resolution of legal matters,
promoting access to justice for all."
As a sequel of above discussion and seeking guidance
from the Judgments supra, we are of the view that case
of the appellant squarely falls within the mischief of
provision of Order XVII rule 3 CPC and appellant’s suit
was rightly dismissed by the trial court after affording
reasonable and justified opportunities to produce her
evidence.
8.
Instant appeal being devoid of any force and
substance stands dismissed in limine. No order as to
costs.
(Masud Abid Naqvi) (Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid)
Judge
Judge
Approved for reporting.
JUDGE
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment