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 No.385 of 1980, decided on 3rd March, 1985.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 13‑1‑1980 in Civil Revision No. 7 of 1980 ).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, r. 8 Dismissal of suit for non‑appearance of plaintiff, his witnesses and counsel Petition for restoration of suit dismissed and High Court refused to interfere in revisional jurisdiction‑‑Plea that as some evidence was already on record case should have been decided on basis of such evidence repelled by Supreme Court refusing leave to appeal on ground that trial Court having exercised discretion in matter, it was .for plaintiff to have come forward with reasonable and sufficient rounds explaining his failure to prosecute case.
Maulvi Abdul Aziz Khan v. Mst. Shah Jahan Begum P L D 1971 S C 434 and Muhammad Haleem v. H.H.Muhammad Naim and others PLD 1969 S C 270 distinguished.
Muhammad Saleem Shahnazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1985.
‑ The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 13‑1‑1980 whereby a civil revision petition filed by him was dismissed.
The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the registered deed of a gift, dated 24‑6‑1968 in favour of his wife, the respondent, was illegal and void for various reasons. The suit was contested and the issues were framed. Two witnesses of the petitioner were examined and the matter was adjourned to 27‑6‑1977. On that date the petitioner did not appear nor his counsel nor his witnesses. The suit was dismissed under Order IX, rule 8, C.P.C. On 6‑7‑1977 the petitioner applied for restoration of the suit. The application was dismissed as sufficient ground was not shown. This order was maintained in appeal and not interfered in revision by the High Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as a direction has been given to the petitioner to produce evidence and there had been a failure on his part to produce it and as material was already available on the record the proper course would have been to decide the case on merits and not to dismiss it in default. He has relied on Maulvi Abdul Aziz Khan v. Mst. Shah Jahan Begum P L D 1971 S C 434 and Muhammad Haleem v. H.H. Muhammad Naim and others,P L D 1969 S C 270.
We find that the course followed by the trial Court in dismissing the suit in default was not contrary to any provision of law. It had exercised a discretion in the matter. It was for the petitioner to have come forward with reasonable and sufficient grounds explaining his failure. As that was not done restoration of the suit was refused. The cases referred to and cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no application to the facts of the case as they relate to the closure of evidence on failure of the party to produce evidence. The petition has no merit and leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
A. A. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer