MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR And 4 Others vs MUHAMMAD ZAMIR And 11 OTHER
Through this constitutional petition, the petitioners challenged the orders dated 03-11-1996 and 24-10-1997 passed by the lower courts, whereby their evidence was closed under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and their revision petition was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in closing the petitioners' evidence and rejecting their application to summon a witness due to repeated adjournments and failure to produce evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners exhibited a lack of interest and employed delaying tactics, and therefore the trial court rightly invoked the penal provisions of Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court laid down the principle that in its writ jurisdiction, it cannot interfere with orders competently passed by courts of competent jurisdiction where the conduct of the party shows deliberate delay.
- Whether a trial court is justified in closing evidence under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a party fails to produce evidence despite opportunities?
- Can the High Court interfere in its writ jurisdiction with orders competently passed by subordinate courts regarding the closure of evidence?
- Order 17 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
Through the writ petition in hand Muhammad Zubair and 4 others, have challenged the orders,, dated 3-11-1996 and 24-10-1997, to be illegal and unlawful whereby the learned Civil Judge, Nowshera by invoking the penal provision of Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C.,, closed the evidence of the petitioners and their application for summoning Shahzad Gul witness through Court was dismissed, which order was maintained by the learned Additional District Judge, Haripur camp at Nowshera by dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated to the petition are that the petitioners brought a suit for declaration and/or in alternative for possession of the suit property, as detailed in the heading of the plaint: that the defendant-respondents Nos. l to 10 were summoned out of whom defendants 1.
2 and 10 resisted the suit and the rest of the defendants did not respond, to the process, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte; that the petitioner produced 7 witnesses at different occasions.
Thereafter, the petitioners submitted an application for summoning one Shahzad Gul through Court, which application was rejected and the evidence of the petitioners was closed applying provision of Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. Discontented with the same, the petitioners filed revision petition before District Judge, Nowshera, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Haripur camp at Nowshera on 24-10-1997. Hence the present writ petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the file.
4. Perusal of the file would show that the petitioners submitted an application for the production of additional witness on 18-2-1996 who had not been cited as witness in the list of witnesses, which was accepted by the trial Court on 3-10-1996 and case was adjourned for remaining evidence of the plaintiff-petitioners but on the next date they failed to produce their evidence. On 16-10-1996 final opportunity was given to the plaintiff-petitioners to produce their evidence, despite that they failed to produce their evidence. The conduct of the petitioners show that they were least interested to pursue their case rather they used to apply delaying tactics to prolong the litigation, In the facts sand circumstances of this case, the learned Trail Court has rightly applied the provision of Order 17, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the learned Additional District Judge has also properly maintained the findings of the learned Trial Court. In writ Jurisdiction, this Court cannot interfere into the orders competently passed by Courts of competent jurisdiction.
Consequently, this writ petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed in limine alongwith C.M. No.2367 of 1997.
Cited by 4 cases
- Faisal Afzal through Attorney vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, (Member 2021 YLR 977
- Philip Morris Pakistan Ltd. vs Muhammad Ashraf, etc. 2014 C.L.R. 571
- AMIR SALEEM vs PRESIDING OFFICER and others 2013 PLD Lahore 607
- Faisal Afzal through Attorney vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, (Residual 2021 PLJ Lahore 491