ARSHAD ALI HASHIMI vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment proceeding initiated by a landlord against a tenant operating a hospital in Faisalabad. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant's eviction, and the tenant appealed. During the appellate stage, the tenant filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to adduce additional evidence, which the Appellate Authority granted. Despite being granted multiple adjournments over several years to produce this evidence, the tenant failed to do so. Consequently, the Appellate Authority refused further adjournments, and the High Court subsequently declined to interfere with this order. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the tenant's persistent failure to produce evidence after three years demonstrated an intent to prolong the ejectment proceedings. The Court affirmed that appellate courts possess the discretion to refuse further adjournments when a party abuses the opportunity to adduce additional evidence, particularly when such conduct appears designed to delay the execution of a lawful eviction order.
- Can an appellate court refuse further adjournments to a party who has failed to produce additional evidence despite being granted multiple opportunities?
- Does the failure to produce additional evidence over a significant period justify the dismissal of an application for such evidence in ejectment proceedings?
- Is a High Court order refusing to interfere with an appellate authority's procedural discretion regarding adjournments sustainable under Article 185(3) of the Constitution?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Rent Restriction Ordinance
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---This is a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution against an order, date 6-2-2002 of the Honourable Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No,17177 of 1999 whereby the said Honourable High Court had refused to interfere with an order dated 8-9- 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Appellate Authority) at Faisalabad.
2. As per information made available to us through this petition, the petitioner herein had taken on rent a property located in the city of Faisalabad from Abdul Majeed respondent for which the petitioner was paying an amount of Rs,5,000 p.m. As rent to the said Haji Abdul Majeed respondent.
The petitioner is stated to be running a hospital in the said property. It also appears from this petition that the said Abdul Majeed respondent sought ejectment of the petitioner from the property in question through an application made to the learned Rent Controller at Faisalabad for the purpose. This application was allowed about four years ago i.e, on 23-6-1998 and the petitioner had been consequently directed to vacate the premises in question. An appeal was then filed by the petitioner calling in question the said judgment/order, dated 23-6-1998 and during the pendency of this appeal, the petitioner submitted an application under. Order 41, rule 27, C.P.C.
Praying for permission to adduce additional evidence. This application was filed on 1-6-1999 and appears to have been allowed and the petitioner appears to have been directed to produce the said additional evidence on 13-7-1999. The petitioner could not produce the said additional evidence on the said date and sought an adjournment which was allowed and the appeal was then fixed for the purpose on 22-7-1999. The same situation continued even on the said adjourned date i.e, 22-7-1999 and the appeal was further adjourned with the further opportunity to the petitioner to produce his additional evidence on 8-9-1999. Even on the said date the petitioner could not produce his evidence and prayed for yet another adjournment. It was at this stage that the learned Additional District Judge i.e, the Appellate Authority wider the Rent Restriction Ordinance refused further adjournment. The petitioner impugned this order, dated 8-9-1999 before the Honourable Lahore High Court through the abovementioned Writ Petition No,17177 of 1999 which was dismissed on 6-2-2002.
3. Since the learned Additional District Judge had allowed the petitioner to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage and since the said order had not been questioned by anyone therefore, we consider it inappropriate to go into the question of the desirability or validity of the order allowing such an opportunity to the petitioner-tenant at a fairly late stage. Suffice it to say that this permission had been allowed to the petitioner almost three years ago but even today i.e, after a lapse of almost three years the petitioner is not equipped with the certified copies of the documents which he wished to produce as additional evidence. The possibility of the petitioner having initiated this exercise only to prolong the ejectment proceedings could not be ruled out,. The conduct of the petitioner is evident from the fact that even after almost three years the petitioner is still not possessed of the evidence which he wished to adduce before the Court. No exception could, therefore, be taken to the order, dated 8-9-1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Appellate Authority at Faisalabad or to the order, dated 6-2-2002 of the Honourable Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No,17177 of 1999.
4. This petition is, therefore, without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.