ALI MUHAMMAD vs RAHMATULLAH
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for recovery of money based on an alleged mortgage and subsequent tenancy. The petitioner, claiming to be a mortgagee, sought recovery of a mortgage debt and compensation for use and occupation of a house, but failed to produce the mortgage deed or rent note during the trial. The trial court, appellate court, and revisional court concurrently dismissed the suit due to this lack of evidence. The core legal question addressed is whether a plaintiff can be permitted to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh one when the failure to produce essential evidence was due to their own omission during trial. The Supreme Court held that permission to file a fresh suit cannot be granted merely because the plaintiff failed to lead necessary evidence during the trial. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that procedural indulgence to withdraw and reinstitute a suit will not be granted to cure a party's failure to adduce foundational evidence during the original proceedings.
- Can a plaintiff be permitted to withdraw a suit with permission to file a fresh one when the plaintiff failed to produce essential evidence during the trial?
- Whether permission to file a fresh suit can be granted merely because the plaintiff omitted to lead necessary evidence before the court?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner claiming himself to be the mortgagee of a house owned by the respondent, filed a suit for recovery of Rs,9,620 against the latter. The amount claimed represented the mortgage debt as well as the compensation for the use and occupation of the house by the respondent. The respondent denied that he had ever mortgaged the house with the petitioner or that after the creation of the mortgage he had taken the house on rent from him. After a regular trial, the Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the petitioner had failed to place on record the mortgage deed or the rent note allegedly executed by the respondent. Its judgment was affirmed by the Additional District Judge in appeal and by the High Court in revision. Now, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to give any explanation why the petitioner did not produce the mortgage deed or the rent note at the trial. He however prays that he may he permitted to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one. We are unable to accept this request, for permission to file a fresh suit cannot be granted just because during the course of the trial the petitioner had omitted to produce evidence which he ought to have led before the Court.
Leave is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 4 cases
- Nazir Ahmad and 10 others vs Hasanullah and 17 others 2023 PHC 135
- NAZIR AHMAD Versus HASANULLAH 2023 MLD 1541
- Muhammad Yousaf & others vs Nazeer Ahmed Khan (deed) through LRs, etc 2021 SCP 332
- Muhammad Yousaf and others vs Nazeer Ahmed Khan (Deceased) 2021 SCMR 1775, 2021 SCP 332, 2022 PSC 326