SHAHID HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and upheld the lower appellate court's decision dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the trial court's order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree. The core legal questions involve the propriety of closing evidence under Order XVII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to the party's failure to produce evidence despite multiple opportunities, and the requirement of explaining inordinate delay in filing an appeal. The Supreme Court held that the impugned orders were unexceptionable, noting that the petitioner failed to provide any explanation for the inordinate delay of over two years in filing the appeal and that the closure of evidence was in accordance with the law. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal must provide a satisfactory and plausible explanation for the entire period of delay, and closure of evidence for non-production after repeated opportunities is justified.
- Whether an order closing evidence under Order XVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is justified when a party fails to produce evidence despite various opportunities?
- Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal as barred by time when no satisfactory explanation is provided for an inordinate delay in filing?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte decree?
- Order XVII Rule 1(3), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 25-10-1999 passed in Civil Revision No,622 of 1996 by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench.
2. It is not necessary to give detailed history of the case. Suffice it to say that a suit for specific performance of the agreement, dated 15-7-1984 to sell the land, allegedly executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent, was decreed ex parte on 29-6-1989. Application of the petitioner for setting aside the same was dismissed on 20-6-1992, in that, despite various opportunities provided to the petitioner he failed to produce his evidence which was eventually closed on 23-5-1992. Appeal filed against the above order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh on 4-4-1996 being barred by time as well as on merits. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before the High Court also failed vide impugned judgment, dated 25- 10-1999, in that, the petitioner failed to tender any explanation, whatsoever, as to inordinate delay in filing appeal against the order, dated 20-6-1992 and that the order was within the contemplation of Order XVII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material available on record. The impugned order appears to be unexceptionable and in conformity with the case of Siddique Gohar v. Fazal Rehman (PLD 1987 Pesh. 24) wherein in somewhat identical circumstances this Court upheld the order of closure of evidence. Additionally, the learned Judge in Chambers was quite right in observing that the petitioner applied for the copy of order, dated 20- 6-1992 on 13-9-1994. Copy was delivered to him on the very date but the appeal was resorted to only on 1-12-1994. No explanation, whatsoever, for condoning the above inordinate delay of more than two years is forthcoming.