LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through Its Director General & Another vs Mian RIAZ AHMAD And Other
The respondents filed a suit against the Lahore Development Authority, which was decreed by the trial court under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, based on admissions made in the Authority's written statement. The petitioners challenged this decree through an appeal before the Additional District Judge and subsequently a revision before the High Court, both of which were dismissed. Upon approaching the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, the petitioners' counsel requested an adjournment, citing ongoing out-of-court settlement negotiations. The Supreme Court, noting that this was the fourth such request for adjournment on the same grounds, refused to grant further time. The Court held that the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were legal and proper, finding no grounds for interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions based on the admissions in the pleadings.
- Can a court refuse an adjournment request when it is the fourth such request based on the same grounds of out-of-court settlement?
- Is a decree passed under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 legally sustainable when based on admissions in a written statement?
- Order XII Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The suit filed by the respondents against the Lahore Development Authority (petitioner No.1 herein) was decreed under Order XII, Rule 6 on the basis of the admissions contained in the written statement filed by the L.D.A. The appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge as also their revision before the High Court. This is petition for leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgments and decrees.
2. Mr. Khaqan Babar, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, instead of pressing the petition for leave has prayed for an adjournment of the case on the ground that the parties are settling the matter out of the Court. Adjournment of the case on similar ground has been obtained on three earlier occasions. We are not inclined to adjourn the case again, for the fourth time on the same plea. The orders of the Courts below are quite legal and proper. No ground for interference is made out. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.