MUHAMMAD FEROZ-UD-DIN HILALI vs NADIR S — 2025 SCMR 1702 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.

MUHAMMAD FEROZ-UD-DIN HILALI VS NADIR S. 100 & O.XVII R. 3---Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), S. 3---Illegal dispossession---Complaint, dismissal of---Original civil jurisdiction also invoked by filing a suit---Concurrent dismissal of suit and appeals---Petitioner seeking repeated adjournments and failing to produce evidence---Closure of evidence---Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence---Petitioner filed a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which was dismissed by the district court---Subsequently, petitioner instituted a civil suit which was also dismissed by the Trial Court---The petitioner then filed appeal before the first appellate court which was also dismissed---A second appeal under section 100, C.P.C. was filed before the High Court which was also dismissed---Two forums of different jurisdiction concluded against the petitioner i.e. complaint under provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 which was dismissed followed by dismissal of suit on the original side along with first appeal and second appeal accordingly---In the present petition the petitioner attempted to take refuge under the purported misapplication of the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. by the courts below by stating that the trial court failed to record evidence of the petitioner---Held: The judgment of the trial court was passed after dismissal of the adjournment application---The application was dismissed after recording reasons that on the previous date (previous to the dismissal of last adjournment application) the petitioner also moved an adjournment application which was allowed as a last chance, despite availing earlier opportunities---On the fateful date neither the petitioner being plaintiff in the suit nor his counsel appeared but an adjournment application was sent stating that the petitioner was suffering from fever---On the same day after dismissal of the adjournment application the judgment was announced and the suit of the petitioner was dismissed being devoid of any evidence---The petitioner being aggrieved of decision under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. preferred an appeal but did not take ground that under the given circumstances Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. was misapplied---Scope of section 100, C.P.C. and that too against the concurrent findings of the original civil court and the first appellate court was limited---Supreme Court did not interfere in the concurrent findings of three courts below who had recorded the non-serious attitude of the petitioner in recording the evidence on a number of occasions, particularly when the petitioner had failed to point out if he had categorically taken this ground before the two appellate forums below---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances, and leave was refused.

MUHAMMAD FEROZ-UD-DIN HILALI vs NADIR S — 2025 SCMR 1702 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR