| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLD 1783 = 1991 CLC 1628 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.3451 of 1990, heard on 3rd February, 1991.
Presented By: Before lhsan-ul-Haq Chaudliry, J
Muhammad Zafar Chaudhry for Petitioner. Ch.Hamid-ud-Din for respondent No.1
Writ Petition No.3451 of 1990, heard on 3rd February, 1991.
Presented By: Before lhsan-ul-Haq Chaudliry, J
Muhammad Zafar Chaudhry for Petitioner. Ch.Hamid-ud-Din for respondent No.1
ALI MUHAMMAD---Petitioner
VERSUS
Mst. SKINA BIBI and others---Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----OXIII, R.2 & OXVIII, R.2---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199-- Additional evidence, production of---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of-- Plaintiff/petitioner, who had earlier been allowed to produce additional evidence, moved second application at final stage of arguments, for production of additional documents, without disclosing as to why those documents were not produced by him earlier---Courts below concurrently dismissed application of plaintiff/petitioner being misconceived and that petitioner had failed to make out a case to attract provisions of OXIII, R.2, C.P.C.---Courts below having exercised jurisdiction vested in them, concurrent order of Courts below, could not be interfered within Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. A.F. Ferguson & Co. v. The Sindh Labour Court and another P L D 1985 SC 429 and Pakistan Burmah-Shell Ltd. v. Mrs. Nasreen Irshad and others 1989 S C M R 1892 ref. Administration of justice--- ---- Law does not help indolent and negligent litigants. Muhammad Zafar Chaudhry for Petitioner. Ch.Hamid-ud-Din for respondent No.1 Date of hearing: 3rd February, 1991. JUDGMENT This writ petition is directed against the order of Civil Judge, Ferozewala and District Judge, Sheikhupura dated 26-1-1989 and 3-5-1990 respectively. The relevant facts are that the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration on 12-7-1974. The issues were framed on 5-7-1977. The petitioner closed his affirmative evidence on 25-4-1982. The defendant closed her side on 6-10-1985 while the petitioner concluded his evidence in rebuttal on 28-6-1986. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application for production of additional evidence. The same was allowed. The petitioner produced documents Exh.P.3 and Exh.P.4 on 21-10-1986. Therafter the suit was posted for final arguments more than half a dozen times. It was on 10-1-1989 when the petitioner submitted yet another application under Order XVIII, Rule 2 read with Order XIII, Rule 2 and Section 151, C.P.C. for production -of additional evidence. The same was dismissed by the learned trial Court-respondent No.3 vide order dated 26-1-1989. The…