SIRAJ DIN vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others
This civil revision arises out of a suit brought by the petitioner against the Lahore Development Authority and others, which was dismissed by the trial court after the petitioner's evidence was closed due to repeated failures to produce evidence, a decision upheld by the appellate court. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in closing the petitioner's evidence and dismissing the suit without granting a final last opportunity, and whether unproven documents placed on the record should have been considered. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not require a specific 'last opportunity' to be given before closing evidence, and that documents cannot be considered unless duly produced and proved in accordance with law. The court laid down the principle that a party showing high negligence and carelessness in pursuing its case by failing to produce evidence despite multiple opportunities cannot challenge the closure of its evidence, and unproven documents placed on record cannot be taken into account.
- Whether the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require that a last opportunity must be given to a party before closing its evidence?
- Can documents placed on the record be taken into consideration by a court while deciding a suit if they are not duly produced and proved in accordance with law?
- Is a trial court justified in closing a party's evidence after multiple opportunities have been granted and the party has failed to produce any evidence?
- Order XVII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the petitioner, Siraj Din, against the respondents, Lahore Development Authority and 2 others. The Civil Judge, who was seized of the suit, allowed several opportunities to the petitioner to produce evidence but he had failed to do so.
His evidence was, therefore, closed and the suit dismissed. Petitioner went in appeal before an Additional District Judge but without success. Hence this civil revision.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not given last opportunity to produce evidence and as such his evidence could not be closed. Provisions of Order XVII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not require that before closing the evidence last opportunity shall be given to the party at fault. Argument addressed by the learned counsel is, therefore, misplaced and cannot be accepted.
3. The next point canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner had placed certain documents on the record but they were not taken into consideration while dismissing the suit. No document can be taken into account while deciding a suit unless it is duly produced and proved in accordance with law. Admittedly, no document was produced or proved by the petitioner. Learned counsel has not referred to any document of which judicial notice should have been taken by the learned Civil Judge without anything having been done by the petitioner. In the circumstances, even if he had placed some documents on the record, they could not be taken into account while deciding the suit. Record shows that after the framing of issues as many as four opportunities were allowed to the petitioner to produce evidence but he had failed to do'so. This reveals that he was highly negligent and careless in pursuing his case and as such the learned trial Court is not to blame for closing his evidence. In this view of the matter judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below are unexceptionable.
4. Resultantly, this civil revision fails. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
Cited by 9 cases
- Shahzada Aman Room & others vs Miangul Hilal & others 2021 PHC 166, 2022 CLC 659
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs ZAHEER AHMAD 2009 MLD 481
- Mrs. KHALIDA BEGUM vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through DirectorGeneral, LDA PLAZA ' and another 2002 YLR 1687
- IRSHAD ALI And ANOTHER vs MUNAWAR KHAN 2001 CLC 1899
- RIASAT ALI And 3 Others vs Ch. MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ AHMAD SINDHHU And 2 OTHER 1999 CLC 1195
- PETROTECH through Managing Director vs Mrs. SHIREEN FAROOQ and another 2000 CLC 1806
- K.P.W. FACTORS (PVT.) LTD. vs SHAFQAT JAVED CHEEMA and others 1998 CLC 110
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR BADAR vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 209
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR BEDAR and others vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM PERVEZ and others 1996 CLC 385