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. 38‑R of 1982, decided on 3rd March, 1982.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 10‑2‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in R. F. A. 4 of 1982).
‑‑ O. XVII, r. 3‑Evidence, failure to produce‑Petitioners delibe rately attempting to delay proceedings before trial Court and not producing evidence despite several adjournments‑Evidence on record not establishing averments of petitioners‑Superiority of claim of other party also found by High Court to be established by copy of shajra nasab and other documents‑Case in view of such facts and adamant conduct of petitioners, held, not fit for grant of leave to appeal‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3).‑[Evidence].
Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of bearing : 3rd March, 1982.
‑Leave to appeal has been sought from the order dated 10‑2‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a second regular first appeal arising out of a suit for possession through pre emption (which was decreed in favour of respondents) was dismissed in limine.
Despite several adjournments (and penalising the petitioners through costs for some of the adjournments), the petitioners had failed to adduce evidence, the suit was accordingly decided by the learned trial Court under Order XVII, rule 3 of C. P. C.
Although there appears to be some force in the argument of the learned counsel that a regular first appeal should not be dismissed in limine, however, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that notwithstanding this aspect of the matter, it is not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. It appears that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioners to delay the proceedings before the trial Court. It also appears that the learned Judge of Division Bench in the High Court relied upon the record which was avail able in the Court with the learned counsel for the petitioners, and made such observations in the impugned order which are indicative of the fact that the relevant aspects relatable to the evidence were brought to their notice, in para. 3 of the impugned order, it has been observed that the evidence, brought on the record does not establish the averments of the appellant . . . . ." Similarly in para. 2 of the impugned order, it has been noted that as the superiority of the pre‑emptive right of respondents 1 to 9 was established by the copy of shajra nasab and other documents . . . ." That being so, keeping in view the adamant conduct of the petitioners which was nothing but contumacious, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
This petition is accordingly 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