Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 1(3) , 3 , 115

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----OXVII, Rr. 1(3) 3, & S. 115---Trial Court while adjourning case for recording statement of plaintiff whether empowered to close his remaining evidence---Trial Court after refusal of adjournment under O.XVII, R. 3, C.P.C., was required to decide the case forthwith, while under O.XVII, R.1(3), C.P.C. it had to proceed with the suit---Course adopted by Trial Court whereby it refused to adjourn the case for further evidence but at the same time adjourned the case for recording statement of plaintiff was not countenanced by either of the provisions viz. O.XVII, R. 3 or O.XVII, R. 1(3), C.P.C.---Trial Court, therefore, could not have closed remaining evidence of plaintiff and while doing so, it had acted arbitrarily---Trial Court's order in question, was set aside and plaintiff was granted one last and final opportunity to produce whatever evidence he desired in support of his case at his own responsibility, failing which his evidence would stand closed. Muhammad Ismail v. LDA. etc. NLR 1988 Civil 438; Muhammad Ramzan and others v. Muhammad Ramzan and others 1992 CLC 543 and Alam Bibi v. Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot and others 1989 CLC 56 rel. Mst. Zaitoon Begum and 2 others v. Muhammad Ilyas and 6 others PLD 1971 Lah. 143 ref. Mian Hamid Farooq for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Saleem for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th November, 1994. JUDGMENT This petition under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code calls in question an order of the trial Court dated 10th February, 1993, whereby while adjourning the case for recording statement of the plaintiff/petitioner the remaining evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner was closed by it. The dispute arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs.11,86,000 filed by the petitioner against the respondents. Despite having obtained various adjournments the petitioner failed to complete his evidence and produced only two witnesses. Consequently, on 10th February, 1993 his remaining evidence except his own statement was closed by the trial Court. The case was, however, adjourned to 28-3-1993 for recording the statement of the petitioner. This order has become impugned in this petition. Mian Hamid…