Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1992 CLC 102

SIRAJ DIN vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others

Citation1992 CLC 102
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Civil Revision No,1145-D of 1991
Date1991-10-01
Judge(s)Muhammad Ilyas
ResultRevision dismissed

ORDER

' This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the petitioner, Siraj Din, against the respondents, Lahore Development Authority and 2 others. The Civil Judge, who was seized of the suit, allowed several opportunities to the petitioner to produce evidence but he had failed to do so.

His evidence was, therefore, closed and the suit dismissed. Petitioner went in appeal before an Additional District Judge but without success. Hence this civil revision.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not given last opportunity to produce evidence and as such his evidence could not be closed. Provisions of Order XVII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not require that before closing the evidence last opportunity shall be given to the party at fault. Argument addressed by the learned counsel is, therefore, misplaced and cannot be accepted.

3. The next point canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner had placed certain documents on the record but they were not taken into consideration while dismissing the suit. No document can be taken into account while deciding a suit unless it is duly produced and proved in accordance with law. Admittedly, no document was produced or proved by the petitioner. Learned counsel has not referred to any document of which judicial notice should have been taken by the learned Civil Judge without anything having been done by the petitioner. In the circumstances, even if he had placed some documents on the record, they could not be taken into account while deciding the suit. Record shows that after the framing of issues as many as four opportunities were allowed to the petitioner to produce evidence but he had failed to do'so. This reveals that he was highly negligent and careless in pursuing his case and as such the learned trial Court is not to blame for closing his evidence. In this view of the matter judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below are unexceptionable.

4. Resultantly, this civil revision fails. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

Cited by 9 cases

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch