Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 710 of 1979, decided on 25th February 1986.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 8‑7‑1979 in Civil Revision No. 839 of 1979.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1808)‑‑

‑‑‑O. XVII, Rr. 1 & 3‑‑Dismissal of suit for want of evidence‑‑Case fixed fur evidence but in spite of adjournments granted, petitioner failing to produce evidence‑‑Order dismissing suit of petitioner, held, suffering from no infirmity in circumstances‑‑Contention, that when a party to a suit made a request for adjournment of a case under O.XVII R.1, C.P.C., court has only powers either to grant or refuse adjournment but in no case it has power to dismiss suit while refusing an adjournment, held, was untenable‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with Maqbul A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioner. Date of hearing: 25th February, 1986.

The petitioner filed a suit for possession by pre‑emption against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Bhakkar on 20‑7‑1977 which was dismissed by the learned trial Court under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. vide judgment dated 19‑3‑1979, as the petitioner failed to produce evidence in spite of the fact that time had been allowed to him to do so. The petitioner filed appeal against this order which was dismissed in limine by the learned District Judge per order dated 9‑5‑1979. The petitioner then filed a revision petition in the Lahore High Court which was also dismissed in limine vide the impugned order dated 8‑7‑1979.

2. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the learned High Court Judge has placed al wrong interpretation on the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the A Code of Civil Procedure; that when a party to a suit makes a request for adjournment of a case under Order XVII, Rule 1, C.P. C. the Court has only powers either to grant the adjournment or to decline to give such adjournment but in no case it has the power to dismiss the suit while refusing an adjournment.

3. We do not agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel. The case was, fixed for the evidence but in spite of the adjournments granted earlier the petitioner failed to produce the evidence. In the relevant order sheet it is recorded:‑

"Counsel for the parties are present. Plaintiff (petitioner herein) is unable to produce evidence. Earlier adjournment was granted at the cost of Rs.30 but even then he failed to produce evidence. There is no reason to grant further adjournment."

We find that the order suffers from no infirmity. The petition has no merit and the same is, consequently, dismissed.

M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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