Ghulam Muhammad Versus Rashidan Bibi
Ch. Sultan Mahmood, J .--- Right of the petitioner to produce evidence in consolidate suits titled as Ghulam Muhammad v. Rasheedan Bibi and others for declaration and permanent injunction with consequential relief, instituted by him against the respondents and Mst. Rashidan Bibi and others v. Ghulam Muhammad and others for declaration, possession, cancellation of documents, permanent injunction with consequential relief, filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 3 against the respondents, was closed vide order dated 24.04.2025, which has been called into question through the instant civil revision.
2. Heard.
3. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that consolidated issues were framed on 30.07.2022. However, due to various factors including strikes by the local bar and the leave of the learned Presiding Officer, the petitioner s evidence could not be recorded. The record further reflects that on approximately eight dates, the petitioner s witnesses failed to appear for evidence. Subsequently, the matter was listed on 25.10.2024, when the petitioner was granted a final opportunity to produce evidence on 14.11.2024. However, on that date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 28.11.2024 and on said date, the defendant filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), upon which the case was adjourned to 07.01.2025. The application was ultimately dismissed on 17.02.2025. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording of the petitioner s evidence between 17.02.2025 and 03.03.2025. Order sheet shows that following the dismissal of the said application only two effective opportunities were granted to the petitioner to produce evidence. On the third date i.e., 24.04.2025, the learned trial Court closed the petitioner s right to lead evidence. Furthermore, the interim order sheets reflect that the matter was fixed for the defendant s evidence on at least four occasions; however, the defendant failed to produce evidence on those dates. Despite these repeated defaults, no coercive or adverse orders were passed against the defendant.
It appears that the learned trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order in a hasty and arbitrary manner, seemingly to expedite disposal of the case. This approach, however, is not in consonance with the settled principles of law or fair trial, and results in manifest prejudice to the petitioner. The order, therefore, is harsh and legally unwarranted in the circumstances of the case.
4. There is no cavil to the proposition that cases should be decided at the earliest without wasting time and adjournments should not be given without any plausible reason, so as to lessen the burden which is prevailing on the Courts but at the same time it is also unjust to penalize the litigant public in the way, which has been observed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law; resultantly, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty thousand), which shall be paid by the petitioner to respondents before the learned trial court on the next date of hearing while allowing the instant civil revision, the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to afford one opportunity to the petitioner s side to lead his evidence and decide the suit in accordance with law.
MQ/G-11/L Revision allowed.