Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 3045 2022 SLD 3045 2022 YLR 996
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 3077 of 2011, decided on 24th September, 2021.
SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J
Nemo for Petitioner. Abdul Rauf and Muhammad Javed Hanif for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN

VS

GHULAM AHMED and others

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 3

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----O.XVII, R.3---Maxim ‘law helps vigilant and not the indolent’---Applicability---Suit was concurrently dismissed for want of evidence---Held, that petitioner/plaintiff failed to produced witnesses for cross-examination despite availing many opportunities was granted one last opportunity for production of complete evidence with warning that if he failed to avail the same, his right to lead evidence will be closed neither appeared himself in the witness box nor produced his evidence which showed his unyielding adamant attitude towards the orders of Court could not seek favour of law because law favours the vigilant and not the indolent---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly. Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer-ud-Din and others 2015 SCMR 1401 and Moon Enterpriser CNG Station, Rawalpindi v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd through General Manager, Rawalpindi and another 2020 SCMR 300 rel. ORDER SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, JUSTICE:---.--- Despite reflection of name of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the cause list, none has entered appearance on his behalf; thus, the instant petition being old one is going to be decided after hearing learned counsel for the respondents and going through the available record. 2. Precisely, the petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell against the respondents/ defendants, which was contested by the respondents/defendants. Issues were framed and case was adjourned for evidence of the petitioner but the petitioner despite availing numerous opportunities failed to produce his witnesses for facing the cross-examination, thus, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 07.04.2010 closed his right to produce evidence by invoking powers under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and vide even dated judgment and decree dismissed the suit for want of evidence. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal but the same was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.07.2011; hence, the instant civil revision. 3. Heard. 4. Considering the arguments and perusing the record, made available, as well as going through the impugned…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492