Find a Lawyer

‑‑ S. 115 and O. XVII, Rr. I & 2‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑Several adjournments allowed to plaintiff for production of evidence‑Defendant invoking revisional jurisdiction of High Court for closing of plaintiff's evidence‑High Court while not agreeing to close plaintiff's evidence observed that trial Court could have minimized adjournments, and avoided delay in decision of suit- Declining interference, High Court directed trial Court to decide suit expeditiously and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Mirza Manzoor Ahmad for Petitioner.

This is a petition for revising order dated 10-12‑1985 of learned Civil Judge, Multan, allowing further time to the plaintiff for his evidence and postponing the suit to 19‑1‑1986. Facts in brief leading upto the petition are respondents brought a civil suit against petitioner for specific per formance of contract dated 20‑10‑1979. Suit was instituted on 13‑10‑1982. It was contested by the petitioner. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan framed issues on 30‑5‑1984 and adjourned the suit to 27‑11‑1984 for plaintiffs' evidence. Before that, application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. was disposed of by him and a restraining order was issued against the defendant. From 27‑11‑1984, suit has been adjourned more than once for plaintiffs' evidence, but no progress was shown to have been made and till 10‑12‑1985, the suit remained where it was on 27‑11‑1984. Even on 10‑12‑1985 on a request made by the plaintiffs, suit was adjourned to 19‑1‑1986 i.e. today. Defendant is aggrieved of the action of the civil Court in allowing repeated adjournments without sufficient cause, He states that, in the delay, defendant is suffering excessively. His counsel submitted that the order sheet is replete with adjournments for which no sufficient cause had been shown to exist. It was also argued that discretion in allowing adjournments has not been exercised properly. In the circumstances, counsel states that impugned order dated lh‑12‑1985 be revised and after setting it aside, plaintiffs' evidence be closed and suit dismissed for want of any material in support of the claim set forth in the plaint.

2. Under Order XVII of the Code, adjournment is in the discretion of Court, but it is allowed only when sufficient cause is disclosed. In the case under discussion, several adjournments have been allowed to the plaintiffs, but no progress was shown by them inasmuch as they failed to bring necessary, material before the Court. Record reveals, issues were framed on 30‑5‑1984. Despite expiry of a year, evidence has not been recorded. I have noticed regretfully that this case has suffered delay and was being postponed for plaintiffs' evidence. Court, in the matter of adjournments, has treated the plaintiffs, rather indulgently. Thought I have not felt persuaded to agree with the defendant's counsel to close plaintiffs' evidence in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, yet I have felt constrained to observe that the learned Civil Judge in the circumstances of the case, could have minimised adjournments and avoided delay in the decision of the suit. In the circumstances, while declining interference, learned Civil Judge is directed to see‑that the suit is decided expeditiously and the unnecessary adjournments are avoided. With these observations, civil revision is disposed of.

A. A. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.