4. Perusal of the above cited paragraph and proceedings of the learned Trial Court leads to conclusion that learned Trail Court showed extra ordinary indulgence in the matter and granted adequate opportunities to the petitioner to produce evidence in support of his claim. The benevolence shown by the learned Trial Court was misconstrued by the petitioner. In fact the conduct of the petitioner was not only carefree or negligent but also contumacious. The petitioner neither before the learned Courts below nor in the memorandum of instant revision petition has disclosed any reason which caused hindrance in his way to produce evidence before the learned Trial Court on 14.6.2013, 10.7.2013, 11.9.2013, 23.10.2013, 20.11.2013, 15.1.2014, 23.1.2014, 8.2.2014 and 12.2.2014. After examining the record of the case, I am of the view that the learned Trial Court was confronted with a situation where the petitioner was not ready with his evidence. In these attending circumstances, learned Trial Court while proceeding with the suit under sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XVII CPC could close his evidence so as to get to the next stage in the trial. This is what the learned Trial Court precisely did in the present case. The citation of the Order XVII Rule 3 CPC in judgment dated 12.02.2014 does not make any difference because substance of the said judgment shows that the learned Trial Court meant to close the evidence under Order XVII Rule 1 (3) CPC. Accordingly I hold that evidence of the petitioner was rightly closed. In arriving at this conclusion I stand fortified from the judgment rendered in the cases of Pirzada Amir Hssan and others v Mrs. Shamim Shah Nawaz and others (1984 CLC 3080) and The Administrator, Lahore Municipal Corporation, Lahore v Abdul Hamid and others (1987 CLC 1261).
Part of Judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
Civil Revision-Civil Revision(Against Decree)-Pre-emption
3543-14
| 2017 LHC 311 |
0 comments:
Post a Comment