SHAMSUL HAQ vs MUHAMMAD JALALUDDIN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a second appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the striking off of the petitioner's defence in rent proceedings. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller and the appellate authority were justified in striking off the tenant's defence due to the failure to comply with a conditional remand order regarding the production of evidence and the payment of rent arrears. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had engaged in dilatory tactics, failing to comply with the specific directions of the High Court's remand order, which required the production of evidence on the first date of hearing. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions to dismiss the appeal and maintain the order striking off the defence. The key principle laid down is that where a remand order is conditional upon the timely production of evidence or compliance with procedural directions, a court is fully justified in refusing adjournments and closing the case if the party deliberately employs dilatory tactics to avoid such compliance.
- Is a court justified in striking off a tenant's defence when the tenant fails to comply with a conditional remand order requiring the production of evidence?
- Can an appellate authority refuse an adjournment request when a party has previously engaged in dilatory tactics to avoid service and compliance with court orders?
- Does the failure to comply with a conditional remand order regarding the production of evidence justify the closure of a party's case?
- Section 13(6), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-In a petition for ejectment of the petit one who is a tenant of a shop, the Rent Controller made an order under section 13 (6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance on 4-4-1977 for deposit of the arrears of rent which was to be made up to 15-6-1977. The order was not complied with according to its terms and the arrears deposited on 10-8-1977. In the meanwhile an application for striking off the defence had been filed and the Rent Controller disbelieving the version of illness struck off the defence by an order, whose correct date could not be furnished by the counsel for the petitioner.
2. The above order was challenged by an appeal before the Ist Additional District Judge, Karachi, which was dismissed in limine. The petitioner filed a second appeal before the High Court of Sind at Karachi which was allowed 17-2-1979 and the care remanded to the Additional District Judge with the following directions which were contained in paras. 6 and 7 of the judgment :
(1) The case shall be decided within three months of the date of the receipt of the records after giving the parties an opportunity to produce evidence.
(2) The petitioner shall produce evidence on the first date of hearing fixed before the appellate authority (except the Doctor who being a Govern--ment servant was to be summoned through process of the Court).
(3) The learned Additional District Judge would be at liberty to close the case of the petitioner if he found that he was deliberately commit. Ting default in producing the evidence.
3. It appears that the records were received on 24-5-1979 and the case was to be disposed of in terms of the order of the High Court by 24-8-1979. However, the petitioner could not be served (or avoided service) until 5-9-1979. On this date, his counsel appeared and instead of producing evidence on behalf of the petitioner simply filed his vakalatnama and prayed for adjournment. This prayer was rightly refused and ultimately the appeal dismissed. The second appeal filed to challenge this order was also dismissed By a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court at Karachi observing as under :- - "In view of the appellant and his counsel's undertaking referred to in the High Court's aforesaid order, it was incumbent on the appellant to be present in Court on the first date of hearing along with the two witnesses mentioned in para. 6 of the said order and to move an application for summoning the doctor. The learned Additional District Judge hall, taken into consideration the fact that in spite of the fact that notices were issued to the appellant several times prior to the service, the case would not be served upon the appellant on account of his dilatory tactics.
4. And again: - "Since the remand order was conditional, it cannot be said that thu learned Additional District Judge was not justified in declining the appellant's request for adjournment on 5-9-1979."
5. We fully agree with these observations and are convinced that the petitioner was employing dilatory tactics and the decision maintaining the order striking off his defence was fully justified.
6. The overall result is that this petition fails and is dismissed hereby.