Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLD 735 = 1994 CLC 707
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1157 of 1993. decided on 22nd December. 1993
Presented By: Before Abdul Majid Tiwana,J
M.I. Zafar Khan for Petitioner. Abdul Karim Bhutta for
Respondent.

Mst. NAWAB BIBI---Petitioner

VERSUS

Haji MUHAMMAD AMIN ---Respondent

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 3 , 42 , 54

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XVII, R. 3---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Dismissal of suit for non-production of evidence--Suit for declaration and perpetual injunction was dismissed by Courts below after closing evidence of plaintiff on ground that plaintiff had failed to produce evidence despite providing him several opportunities---Plaintiff had contended that the day on which suit was dismissed for non-production of evidence, case did not find mention in cause list of Trial Court and due to that reason plaintiff and his counsel could not put in appearance---Certified copy of cause list of Court pertaining to relevant date of hearing indicated that suit of plaintiff was not mentioned therein-- Authenticity of certified copy of cause list produced in Court was beyond any doubt---Plaintiff and his counsel were not expected to appear in Court on relevant date of hearing for production of evidence and question of closure of evidence of plaintiff did not arise---Judgments and decrees of Courts below dismissing suit for non-production of evidence, were set aside, in circumstances. M.I. Zafar Khan for Petitioner. Abdul Karim Bhutta for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th November, 1993. JUDGMENT   This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-4-1993, by which the learned Additional District Judge, Nankana Sahib, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 15-4-1992, whereby a learned Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib had dismissed her suit after closing her evidence under Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C. The plaintiff-petitioner had instituted a suit against the defendant respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib, for seeking a declaration to the effect that she was owner in possession of the disputed property and the entries of the Revenue Record in favour of her opponent were against law and facts. She claimed her title on the basis of its purchase by her late husband Ali Muhammad some ten years prior to the institution of the suit, whereafter he had allegedly raised construction thereon, consisting of two rooms, a bathroom and boundary walls. She also…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register