 |
| Right of evidence 2026 ylr 20 |
صرف دو مواقع کے بعد حقِ شہادت بند کرنا — منصفانہ ٹرائل کی خلاف ورزی
Introduction
Facts of the Case
Limited Opportunities for Evidence
Unequal Treatment by the Trial Court
High Court’s Analysis
Principle of Fair Trial
Final Decision
Conclusion
Must read judgment.
2026 YLR 20
Closing right of producing evidence---Fair trial---Scope---Petitioner /plaintiff assailed order of closing right of producing evidence---Validity---Record clearly indicated that after framing of the issues the petitioner's evidence could not be recorded due to various factors including strikes by the local bar and the leave of the Presiding Officer, while on approximately eight dates the petitioner's witnesses failed to appear for evidence---Subsequently the petitioner was granted a final opportunity to produce evidence on next date, however, on that date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned but on next date, the defendant filed an application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C, upon which the case was adjourned---Ultimately, the application was dismissed, thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording of the petitioner's evidence---Order sheet showed that following the dismissal of the said application only two effective opportunities, spanning about fifteen days, were granted to the petitioner to produce evidence; on the third date, the Trial Court closed the petitioner's right to lead evidence---Furthermore, the interim order sheets reflected that the matter was fixed for the defendant's evidence on at least four occasions; however, the defendant failed to produce evidence on those dates---Despite said repeated defaults, no coercive or adverse orders were passed against the defendant---It appeared that the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order in a hasty and arbitrary manner, seemingly to expedite disposal of the case---Said approach, however, was not in consonance with the settled principles of law or fair trial, resulting in manifest prejudice to the petitioner---Therefore, the impugned order, was harsh and legally unwarranted in the circumstances of the case---Though the cases should be decided at the earliest without wasting time and adjournments should not be given without any plausible reason, so as to lessen the burden which was prevailing on the Courts, but at the same time it was also unjust to penalize the litigant public in a way, which has been adopted by the Trial Court---High Court set aside the impugned order, not being sustainable in the eyes of law---Resultantly, Trial Court was directed to afford one opportunity to the petitioner's side to lead its evidence subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-to be paid by the petitioner to respondents.
Ghulam Muhammad vs Rashidan Bibi