Pakistan Case LawWahga (deceased) Versus Liaquat Ali
Civil revision petition before the Lahore High Court challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Kasur, whereby the petitioner's declaratory suit was dismissed for want of evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core issue before the High Court was whether the trial court was justified in closing the petitioner's evidence and dismissing the suit, or whether such action violated the principles of natural justice and fair trial. The High Court observed that the petitioner was afforded repeated opportunities, including conditional adjournments on costs, to produce evidence. On the final date, despite the witnesses being present, their statements were not recorded on the pretext of attending a family function, and the witnesses refused to record their examination-in-chief, alongside resorting to dilatory applications. Holding that this conduct constituted willful default, the High Court held that the invocation of Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was fully warranted to curb frivolous adjournments, and dismissed the revision petition.
- Whether the refusal of witnesses present in court to record their examination-in-chief constitutes willful default justifying dismissal under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Can a trial court dismiss a suit under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when multiple opportunities and conditional adjournments on costs to produce evidence have been exhausted?
- Does the dismissal of a suit for want of evidence violate the principles of natural justice when the party engages in dilatory tactics instead of leading evidence?
Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J .--- Through instant revision petition, petitioner has assailed vires of judgments and decrees dated 12.11.2022 and 13.12.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Kasur, respectively, whereby petitioner's suit for declaration was concurrently dismissed for want of evidence.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Courts below prematurely concluded the proceedings without affording the petitioner a fair and meaningful opportunity to adduce evidence. He contends that the petitioner was fully prepared and willing to record his evidence, but due to the manner in which the proceedings were conducted, he was effectively deprived of a proper chance to do so. He further submits that the denial of adequate opportunity violates the principles of natural justice and fair trial, rendering the impugned judgments and decrees illegal and suffering from material irregularity.
3.On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned judgments and decrees.
4.The record shows that the petitioner repeatedly failed to lead his evidence despite being granted repeated and adequate opportunities including conditional adjournments with costs. Even on the final date of hearing, although the petitioner's witnesses were admittedly present in Court but learned counsel once again sought an adjournment on the untenable plea that the PWs were required to attend a family function. The learned Trial Court, showing further leniency, directed that at least examination-in-chief of the witnesses be recorded. The witnesses, however, declined to do so without any justifiable cause. Such conduct, bringing witnesses to Court but refusing to have their statements recorded, amounts to willful default and constitutes a clear violation of the Court's directions. Even otherwise, despite being granted multiplo opportunities, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence. Instead he engaged in delaying tactics by filing applications for appointment of a receiver and local commissioner. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court was fully justified in invoking the provision of Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Accordingly, the dismissal of the suit for want of evidence was a legal and inevitable consequence of petitioner s persistent non-compliance.
5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases reported as Hasham Khan and others v. Haroon ur Rashid and others (2022 SCMR 1793), Duniya Gul and another v. Niaz Muhammad and others (PLD 2024 SC 672). Lutfullah Virk v. Muhammad Aslam Sheikh (PLD 2024 SC 887) , order dated 10.01.2025, passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2025 SCMR 624 titled Muhammad Asim v. Dr. Abdul Hamid Jan and others , order dated 27.03.2025, passed by the Apex Court in 2025 SCMR 1032 titled Muhammad Akram v. Shafaqut Ali and order dated 08.10.2025, passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P.L.A.3470/2025 titled Irfan Rasheed v. Zawr Muhammad Afzal and others has observed that adherence to such directions reinforces the rule of law, preserves sanctity of judicial orders, and curbs the growing culture of frivolous adjournments. The impugned judgments and decrees are, therefore, in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, thus, no interference is called for.
6.The instant petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed . No order as to costs.
UN/W-2/L Petition dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi695 judgments