| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLG 414 1990 SLD 414 1990 PLD 1192 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.729 of 1990, decision dated: 19-06-1990. (On appeal from the order dated 12-6-1988 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, in Civil Revision No.132-88/BWP)
MUHAMMAD AJZAL ZULLAH, C.J. AND ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No.729 of 1990, decision dated: 19-06-1990. (On appeal from the order dated 12-6-1988 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, in Civil Revision No.132-88/BWP)
MUHAMMAD AJZAL ZULLAH, C.J. AND ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
JINDWADDA and others
VS
ABDUL HAMID and others
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XVII,R.3
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------O. XVII, R.3---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to examine questions whether evidence of the appellants could be closed under OXVII, R.3, C.P.C.; Judgment of Supreme Court in Haji Muhammad Ramzan Sairi v. Mian Abdul Majid and others PLD 1986 SC 129 also required examination so as to see whether view expressed in that case was in favour of the appellants and question of res judicata. Haji Muhammad Ramzan Saifi v. Mian Abdul Majid and others PLD 1986 SC 129. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----O. XVII, R.3---Closure of evidence---Suit was instituted in 1985 and was adjourned for more than a dozen times for the sake of the defendants---Evidence of plaintiffs was present on 16-5-1987 but it could not be recorded for the reason that no time was left with the Court to record the same---Trial Court, instead of binding down the witnesses and recording the evidence on the next date gave a longish adjournment of 5 months---When case was taken up on the next date it was before another Court at a result of transfer thereof---Order did not show that plaintiffs had not brought their evidence with them on that day and the only reason given for adjournment was that the case having been received on transfer it was (perhaps) registered on that date and was adjourned for plaintiff's evidence to 23-11-1987 and on that day Trial Court assuming that the said date was fixed and case was adjourned on the request and asking of the plaintiffs for the production of their evidence and they having failed to do so, OXVIT, R.3, C.P.C. was attracted---Case, however, was not adjourned on the request of plaintiffs on the last date and it was act of Court to notice transfer of the case to it and then in routine fixing a date for the evidence of the plaintiffs to start---Court having not read the record with care it was not a case of application of OXVII, R.3, C.P.C. but an obvious case of misreading of evidence and Judgment of Trial Court was liable to be set aside in circumstances. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---This appeal through leave of the Court is directed; against the dismissal by the High…
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