MALIK GUL HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD AYUB And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a suit for possession by pre-emption. The petitioner's suit was originally dismissed by the trial court under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, due to the petitioner's failure to produce evidence despite being granted opportunities to do so. The appellate court and the High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal and revision petition in limine. The core legal question was whether a court, when refusing a request for an adjournment under Order XVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is restricted from dismissing the suit under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the trial court acted within its authority. The ratio established is that where a party fails to produce evidence despite previous adjournments, the court is empowered to proceed under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and dismiss the suit for failure to produce evidence, rather than being limited solely to refusing the adjournment request.
- Can a court dismiss a suit under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if a party fails to produce evidence after being granted adjournments?
- Does a court have the power to dismiss a suit when refusing a request for adjournment under Order XVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Order XVII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XVII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--The petitioner filed a suit for possession by pre-emption against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Bhakkar on 20-7-1977 which was dismissed by the learned trial Court under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Vide judgment dated 19-3-1979, as the petitioner failed to produce evidence in spite of the fact that time had been allowed to him to do so. The petitioner filed appeal against this order which was dismissed in limine by the learned District Judge per order dated 9-5-1979. The petitioner then filed a revision petition in the Lahore High Court which was also dismissed in limine vide the impugned order dated 8-7-1979.
2. 2.The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the learned High Court Judge has placed al wrong interpretation on the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the A Code of Civil Procedure; that when a party to a suit makes a request for adjournment of a case under Order XVII, Rule 1, C.P. C. The Court has only powers either to grant the adjournment or to decline to give such adjournment but in no case it has the power to dismiss the suit while refusing an adjournment.
3. 3.We do not agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel. The case was, fixed for the evidence but in spite of the adjournments granted earlier the petitioner failed to produce the evidence. In the relevant order sheet it is recorded:- "Counsel for the parties are present. Plaintiff (petitioner herein) is unable to produce evidence.
4. Earlier adjournment was granted at the cost of Rs.30 but even then he failed to produce evidence.
5. There is no reason to grant further adjournment."
6. We find that the order suffers from no infirmity. The petition has no merit and the same is, consequently, dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAMSUDDIN vs JEEVAT RAM and 4 others 2013 YLR 765