DUNIYA GUL vs NIAZ MUHAMMAD O — 2024 PLD 672 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

DUNIYA GUL VS NIAZ MUHAMMAD O.XVII, R.3---adjournments---Prevalent trend of frequent adjournment requests in lower courts---Such trend amounts to an abuse of the process of the court---This practice has significantly contributed to a substantial backlog of litigation in the lower judiciary---It is imperative that the courts actively discourage this behavior to ensure the prompt delivery of justice to the citizens of Pakistan---By curbing the routine use of adjournments, the courts can expedite legal proceedings, alleviate the burden on the lower judiciary, and ultimately enhance the efficiency of the judicial system, and this, in turn, will contribute to a more timely and effective resolution of legal matters, promoting access to justice for all---It is imperative for the court to exercise vigilance and refrain from granting adjournments liberally and without any compelling reasons----Such a cautious approach is necessary to prevent abuse of the legal system, ensure a fair and timely resolution of cases, and optimize the use of judicial resources---In this regard, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("C.P.C.") under Order XVII, Rule 3, empowers the court to proceed to decide the suit forthwith if a party, to whom time has been granted, fails to produce evidence, secure the attendance of witnesses, or perform any other act necessary for the further progress of the suit. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 672 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case DUNIYA GUL VS NIAZ MUHAMMAD O. XVII, R. 3---Party failing to produce its evidence---Power of the Trial Court to strike off a party's right to produce oral evidence---When the last opportunity to produce evidence is granted and the party has been duly warned of the consequences, the court must execute its order consistently and strongly, without exceptions---Such a measure would not only realign the system and reaffirm the authority of the law but also curb the trend of seeking multiple adjournments on frivolous grounds, which serve to needlessly prolong and delay proceedings without valid or legitimate justification---Moreover, when the court issues an order providing the final chance, it not only issues a judicial order but also extends a commitment to the parties that no further adjournments will be permitted for any reason---Court must stand by its order and uphold its commitment, leaving no room or option for any alternative action. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 672 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case DUNIYA GUL VS NIAZ MUHAMMAD O. XVII, R. 3---Seeking multiple adjournments on frivolous grounds---Defendants failing to produce their oral evidence and prolonging the matter by seeking adjournments---Right to produce evidence struck off---Detail of the trial court proceedings showed that the petitioners (defendants) were afforded more than forty-three adjournments spreading over more than two years for the production and recording of their evidence---Case was repeatedly adjourned at the request of the petitioners for the production of their evidence---Despite clear warnings i.e. "last opportunity" by the trial court and the imposition of costs, the petitioners failed to produce and record the oral evidence---Trial court vide different orders gave specific warnings to the petitioner by issuing notice under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. with cost, but, the petitioners did not take it seriously and omitted to produce and record their evidence---Instead, they filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for the rejection of the plaint, albeit at a belated stage, when the case was fixed for the evidence of the defendants and was about to be finalized---Said application was dismissed by the trial court but the petitioners did not stop there; they unnecessarily dragged the plaintiff (respondent) up to the Supreme Court while challenging the order of the trial court dismissing their application for rejection of the plaint---During that period, the proceedings of the case remained suspended---Trial court was fully justified in striking off the right of the petitioners to produce the oral evidence by invoking the penal provision of the Order XVII, Rule 3 of the C.P.C.---Petition was dismissed and leave was refused.

DUNIYA GUL vs NIAZ MUHAMMAD O — 2024 PLD 672 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD