| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 3048 = 2004 SLD 3048 = 2004 PLJ 1262 = 2004 PLD 1507 |
Lahore High Court
C.R. No. 274 of 2004, heard on 12.5.2004.
Presented By: MRS. FAKHAR-UN-NISA KHOKHAR, J.
Mr. Muhammad Saeed Ahmed, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. M. Aslam Shahid, Advocate for
Respondent
C.R. No. 274 of 2004, heard on 12.5.2004.
Presented By: MRS. FAKHAR-UN-NISA KHOKHAR, J.
Mr. Muhammad Saeed Ahmed, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. M. Aslam Shahid, Advocate for
Respondent
Malik MUHAMMAD FEROZ-Petitioner
VERSUS
Ch. BASHIR AHMAD-Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section: O. XVII, R. 3
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) O. XVII, R. 3-Closure of evidence Dismissal of suit-Confirmation of finding by appellate Court-Validity-Provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC no doubt are punitive in nature but it does not mean that Court can use this punitive action without even giving final opportunity of evidence to parties-Provisions of this rule are permissive and discretionaiy and also not mandatory in nature-Court can only close evidence by parties conduct is contumacious and fails to produce witnesses-Where party has failed to produce evidence Court may close its evidence and proceed to record evidence of other party and when evidence of other party is recorded other side must be given reasonable opportunity to impeach testimony of witnesses-More over, both order do not disclose that on whose instance case was adjourned for evidence-Held: Material irregularity and illegality exists in attracting provisions of Order 17, Rule 3 CPC in present-Case where Court has rushed to punitive action rather giving, sufficient time to parties to produce their evidence-Civil Revision accepted. [Pp. 1263 & 1264] A, B & C . Date of hearing: 12.5.2004. judgment The brief facts in the instant civil revision are that the petitioner's evidence was closed under Order 17, Rule 3 CPC by the learned trial Court and the suit filed by the Petitioner was dismissed. On appeal the finding of he learned trial Court was…