AMIR And Another vs SARDAR AHMAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' civil revision. The respondent had filed a suit for possession of a piece of land on the ground of encroachment. During the trial, the defendants failed to produce their evidence on the designated date, whereupon their defence was closed by the trial court under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The petitioners' subsequent appeal before the District Judge and civil revision before the High Court were both dismissed. The Supreme Court considered the record and heard the petitioners' counsel, finding no flaw in the impugned judgment. The Court held that the High Court was fully justified in dismissing the civil revision where the defendants failed to adduce evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal as being without merit, affirming the principle that failure to produce evidence warrants the closure of defence under the applicable procedural rules.
- Whether a trial court is justified in closing the defence of defendants who fail to produce evidence on the fixed date?
- Can a civil revision be maintained against concurrent findings of lower courts where no legal flaw is shown in the impugned judgment?
- Order XVII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This petition is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 29-10-1984, dismissing petitioner's civil revision.
2. Facts, briefly, are that Sardar Ahmad, respondent, filed a suit for possession of a piece of land against the present petitioner on the ground that the latter had encroached upon it. The suit was resisted and issues were framed. Sardar Ahmad respondent-plaintiff adduced his evidence and Amir and Bashir defendant /petitioners were then required to produce their evidence on 17-4-1984, but they ailed to do so. There defence was, therefore, closed under Order XVII, rule 3, C . P. C . And the suit was decreed on the basis of the evidence led by Sardar Ahmad plaintiff-respondent. The petitioners filed an appeal against the judgment of the trial Court which was dismissed by the District Judge' on 10-9-1984. The petitioners then filed a civil revision before the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
Feeling aggrieved they have filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned judgment. He has not been able to show any flaw in the impugned judgment and we are of the view that on the A facts as apparent from the record the High Court was justified in dismissing petitioners' civil revision.
This petition is, therefore, dismissed being without merit.