KARIM BAKHSH vs THE DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE And Other
The petitioner, Karim Bakhsh, filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief. During the trial proceedings, the court fixed a date for recording evidence. On the scheduled date, the petitioner examined five witnesses but subsequently requested an adjournment to produce further evidence. The trial court refused this request, a decision later upheld by the District Judge in revision and subsequently affirmed by the Lahore High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the trial court was obligated to grant additional time for evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion. The Court emphasized that a party is responsible for prioritizing the examination of essential witnesses rather than delaying such production until the final stages of the trial. The judgment reinforces the principle that trial courts possess the discretion to manage proceedings and deny adjournments when a party fails to demonstrate due diligence in presenting their case, particularly when essential evidence is left for the last moment without justification.
- Is a trial court legally bound to grant an adjournment for the production of further evidence upon the request of a party?
- Does the failure to examine essential witnesses in the first instance justify a trial court's refusal to grant further time for evidence?
- Can a trial court's refusal to grant an adjournment be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction if the party failed to exercise due diligence?
ORDER
1. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.---Karim Bakhsh petitioner filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief. The case was fixed for 31-7-1986 before the trial Court for recording evidence. It was adjourned to 8-9-1986. On the said date evidence of five witnesses, including the three who were present on 31-7-1986, was recorded. The petitioner wanted to produce more evidence. He requested for time. His request was turned down by order dated 8-9-1986.
2. HC sought review of the said order . The trial Court declined by order dated 20-5-1987. Thereafter he filed revision before the District Judge. That too was dismissed. As a last resort he invoked the Constitution jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. The petition was dismissed in limine by order , dated 1-6-1987. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court was bound to give time to the petitioner for further evidence, but he failed to cite any provision of law in support of his contention.
4. It was further submitted that the witness the petitioner wanted to examine was the most important to prove his case.
5. If it was so then he should have examined such a witness in the first instant rather than to leave it to the last moment. There is nothing wrong in the impugned order of the Lahore High Court.
6. Dismissed. 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.