Syed SAABAT HUSSAIN KIRMANI and others vs Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit for declaration due to lack of evidence. The core legal question concerns whether the lower courts were justified in dismissing the suit after the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence despite multiple adjournments and opportunities granted. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were themselves at fault, as sufficient indulgence and opportunities had already been extended to them by the courts below, and the petitioners moreover possessed a weak case on merits. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings and dismissal of the suit.
- Whether a suit can be dismissed for lack of evidence when the plaintiff fails to produce evidence despite multiple adjournments?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the dismissal of a suit for non-production of evidence?
- Whether sufficient indulgence shown to a party for producing evidence justifies the dismissal of their suit upon continued default?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs' side in a suit for declaration, against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court.
2. ' The petitioners' suit was dismissed by the trial Court for the lack of evidence. Despite several opportunities by allowing adjournments, no evidence was produced. The appellate Court and the High Court having upheld the decision of the trial Court, leave to appeal has now been sought.
3. A learned Judge in the High Court examined the record and came to the conclusion that enough indulgence had been shown to the plaintiffs/petitioners side for producing evidence. Thus the petitioners themselves were at fault.
4. ' After hearing the learned counsel on merits also, we feel that the petitioners have a weak case.
5. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.