Case Details

Citation(s)
1995 SLG 974 1995 SLD 974 1995 CLC 431
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No. 155 of 1992, decision dated: 18-01-1993
MUNIRA. SHAIKH AND MIAN GHULAM AHMAD, JJ
Qureshi Muhammad Hafeez for Appellant. Jahangir A. Jojha and Muhammad Amin Lone for
Respondents

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

VS

Syed ZULFIQAR HAIDER and others

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------OXVII, R. 3---Closing of evidence and dismissal of suit---Counsel for plaintiff requested the Court on adjourned date of hearing, to adjourn case because he had not yet recovered from shock suffered by him due to murder of his son-in-law, but Court declined and after closing evidence of plaintiff, dismissed the suit---Held, no doubt, a discretion was vested with Court under O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. in matter of grant of adjournment to a party and in case of failure of a party to produce evidence, to proceed to close his case, but such discretion was to be exercised judicially on relevant considerations in the light of attending facts and circumstances of each case and not whimsically or arbitrarily---Fact was that son-in-law of counsel for plaintiff had been murdered and he was not feeling himself to be in fit state of mind to attend to his case on account of which a request for adjournment was made, discretion should have been exercised by Court in favour of plaintiff for grant of another adjournment in circumstances---Law favours adjudication of right of parties on merits rather than their disposal summarily---Grant of another adjournment, in circumstances, would have met ends of justice. JUDGMENT MUNIR A. SHAIKH, J.---The plaintiff appeals against the judgment and decree dated 8-6-1992 passed by the learned trial Court-through which after closing his evidence under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. his suit has been dismissed for want of evidence. 2. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. The case was fixed for recording the evidence of the appellant on 31-5-1992. On this date learned counsel for the appellant requested for grant of adjournment because his son-in-law had bEen murdered. The Court adjourned the case to 8-6-1992 with the observation that the same was the last opportunity granted to the appellant for production of his evidence. However, on 8-6-1992 the learned counsel for the appellant requested the learned Presiding Officer in his Chamber to adjourn the case because he had not yet recovered from the shock suffered by him due to murder of his son-in-law but he declined to accept the…
🔒
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