MUHAMMAD TAYYAB Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF MALIK
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision petition and upholding the trial court's order. The petitioner had instituted a suit for damages for malicious prosecution in August 1987. During the proceedings, the trial court closed the petitioner's right to cross-examine a defense witness under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to repeated adjournments and deliberate delays by the plaintiff's counsel, which the courts construed as an abuse of the process of the court. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in invoking Order 17, Rule 3 to close the right of cross-examination upon repeated defaults. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings and exercise of discretion by the lower courts were lawful and warranted, as the plaintiff was attempting to employ delaying tactics. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that courts are not obligated to countenance dilatory tactics or abuse of judicial process.
- Whether a trial court can close the right to cross-examine witnesses under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to repeated delays by a party?
- Does failure to cross-examine witnesses despite multiple opportunities amount to an abuse of the process of the court?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent orders of lower courts refusing to countenance dilatory tactics in civil proceedings?
- Order 17 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.--- This is a petition filed by Haji Muhammad Tayyab, petitioner herein, seeking leave to appeal against judgment dated 2-5-1993 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No.1171/91.
2. On 13-8-1987 Haji Muhammad Tayyab, petitioner herein, instituted suit against the respondents claiming a sum of Rs.56,00,000 as damages for malicious prosecution. It appears that the plaintiff-petitioner had concluded his evidence and on 11-12-1990 the examination-in-chief of Raja Abbas Ali defendant was recorded and right to cross-examine him was reserved by the learned duty Civil Judge. The case was adjourned for his cross-examination on 6-4-1991. On 6-4-1991 the case was again adjourned to 9-6-1991 for his cross- examination but on that day too the plaintiffs' counsel did not cross-examine the witnesses despite the Court had to wait for that purpose. The case was again adjourned to 10-6-1991 allowing another opportunity to the petitioner's counsel to cross-examine the witnesses but he failed with the result that the learned Civil Judge had to apply the provisions of Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. closing .petitioner's right to cross-examine the witnesses as according to him, the petitioner could not be allowed to abuse the process of the Court. The order dated 10-6-1991 was assailed through Civil Revision No.1171/91 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide impugned order referred to above holding as under:--
"Here the order in question was under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. and in my opinion all the conditions stated in the precedent case so far as relevant were satisfied. The suit had been pending since 13-8-1987. The examination-in-chief of Raja Abbas Ali, defendant.was recorded on 11-12-1990 and the suit had then been adjourned from time to time on the request of the plaintiff or his counsel for the plaintiff or his counsel for the cross-examination of the witnesses. In view of the proceedings dated 10-6-1991.1 am inclined to agree with the learned Civil Judge that the conduct of the plaintiff amounted to abuse of process of the Court. The suit had been adjourned from 6-4-1991 to 10-6-1991 expressly for the purpose of the cross-examination of the witnesses. In the circumstances there was no obligation in law upon the Court to keep the case pending and to take it up in the later part of the day."
3. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner and going through the file we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has rightly maintained the order of the Civil Judge whereby the petitioner was not allowed to resort to delaying tactics in disposal of the suit, and his right to cross-examine the witnesses was closed.
In our view, this case hardly calls for interference in the matter. Leave to appeal is; accordingly, refused and this petition dismissed.
A.A./M-3016/S Leave refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- Mian Muhammad Riaz and other vs Mst. Marhaba and others 2020 MLD 1436, 2020 PHC 200
- KASHIF ALI KHAN Versus SHER JAN MUHAMMAD 2006 MLD 1447