Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1041 of 1975, decided on 21st February, 1981.
(On petition against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 30‑6‑1975 in Civil Revision No. 688/1975).
-----Art. 185(3)‑Lease agreement Allotment, cancellation of Leave to appeal sought on ground of onus of proof having been wrongly placed on petitioner, record of case having been with respondent‑Law, providing for coercive process, petitioner ought to have resorted to that for purposes of having record produced in case of being not produced despite being summoned‑Leave to appeal declined.
Qureshi Mahmood Ahmed, (Absent) Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 21st February, 1981.
Plot No. 356 was allotted to the petitioner on 14‑4‑1953 and possession was duly delivered to him after a regular contract was entered into on 4‑5‑1953. This allotment was later cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had failed to perform his part of the lease agreement.
2. The petitioner filed a civil suit for a declaration that since the Administrator of Thai Development Authority had defaulted, in performing his part of the contract, he may be precluded from implementing those terms which were to be put into execution by him. The suit was dismissed on 17‑6‑1974 as the learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant was in any way in default. The District Judge dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff on 13‑3‑1975 and a Civil Revision No. 688/1975 was dismissed by the High Court on the 30th of June, 1975 where for this petition for special leave to appeal.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the onus of proof was wrongly placed on the petitioner because the record was with the Depart ment. The simple answer to this is that it was for the petitioner to summon the record from the Department. Learned counsel replied by saying that the Department did not produce the record despite that it was called on to do so. Law provides for coercive process and it was for the plaintiff‑petitioner to have resorted to that for the purpose of having the record produced and if he did not do so he is himself to blame for it. This petition has no merits and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer