MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs MUHAMMAD JAHANZEB KHAN
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Regular First Appeal. The petitioner contends that the trial court erroneously proceeded against him under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arguing that the case was not adjourned for the production of evidence on the relevant date. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that even if the court were justified in closing his evidence, it remained under a legal obligation to provide him an opportunity to record his own statement, citing established precedents. Additionally, the petitioner challenges the admissibility of a promissory note, arguing it was executed without consideration and that the plaintiff failed to substantiate the purpose of the alleged cash transaction. The Supreme Court, upon hearing these contentions, granted leave to appeal to examine whether the trial court's procedure was legally sound and whether the promissory note was validly proven. Pending the final decision of the appeal, the Court ordered the suspension of execution proceedings, provided the petitioner's security remains intact.
- Can a trial court proceed under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the case was not specifically adjourned for the production of evidence?
- Is a court legally obligated to provide a defendant an opportunity to record their own statement even if their evidence has been closed?
- Does a specific objection in a written statement regarding the lack of consideration for a promissory note require the plaintiff to prove the purpose of the transaction?
- Order XVII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15h June, 2004 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan whereby R.F.A. Filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner, inter alia, contended that on 15th July, 2002, case was not adjourned with direction to petitioner-defendant to produce evidence, therefore, on the following date i.e, 3rd July, 2002, learned trial Court had no occasion to proceed against the petitioner under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. He also contended that in view of the judgment reported in the case of Ghulam Rasool v. Rai Ghulam Mustafa and others 1993 SCM R 2026 and Gul Hassan & Co. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 1996 SCM R 237 even if the Court had decided to close the evidence of the petitioner but it had a legal obligation to give opportunity to the petitioner of recording his own statement. Learned counsel further contended that besides it as far as promissory note is concerned, it was also not admissible because in the written statement the petitioner has raised a specific objection regarding its validity on the ground that it is without consideration. To substantiate his plea he stated that the plaintiff who had statedly given cash of Rs,16,00,000 had failed to prove before the Court that for what purpose amount was given to petitioner, therefore, according to him for such reason the plea taken by the petitioner-defendant in the written statement seems to be correct.
After hearing the learned counsel we grant leave to appeal to consider the above contentions. The execution proceedings, pending decision of appeal arising out of this petition, shall remain suspended and the security, which has already been furnished by the petitioner-defendant, while obtaining leave to appeal, shall remain intact till the decision of the appeal for the purpose of satisfying the decree.
Leave to appeal granted.