Dissmissing civil case |The Lahore High Court annulled the decision of the lower courts in the civil claim that dismissing the case on the ground of non-supply of evidence and such a drastic step cannot be taken without giving adequate opportunity to the parties. 2024 C L C 49

The Lahore High Court annulled the decision of the lower courts in the civil claim that dismissing the case on the ground of non-supply of evidence and such a drastic step cannot be taken without giving adequate opportunity to the parties.
2024 C L C 49

اس کیس میں عدالت نے محمد یعقوب اور دیگر کی درخواست پر غور کیا۔ کیس کی تفصیلات کے مطابق سول کورٹ نے درخواست گزاروں کا مقدمہ ثبوت نہ دینے کی بنا پر ضابطہ دیوانی 1908 کے آرڈر XVII، رول 3 کے تحت خارج کر دیا تھا۔ اس فیصلے کو اپیلٹ کورٹ نے بھی برقرار رکھا۔

ریکارڈ سے معلوم ہوا کہ مقدمہ ایک انتظامی حکم کے تحت ایک عدالت سے دوسری عدالت میں منتقل کیا گیا تھا، لیکن ٹرانسفر ہونے والی عدالت نے فریقین یا ان کے وکلاء کو کوئی نوٹس (پروانہ) جاری نہیں کیا تھا۔ اس وقت وکلاء کی ہڑتال بھی چل رہی تھی، اور عدالت نے درخواست گزاروں کو ثبوت پیش کرنے کے لیے ایک آخری موقع دیا تھا۔

عدالت کے فیصلے میں یہ کہا گیا کہ جب مقدمہ ایک انتظامی حکم کے تحت منتقل کیا جاتا ہے تو ضروری ہوتا ہے کہ فریقین کو عدالت کی طرف سے مطلع کیا جائے، تاکہ وہ نئی عدالت میں پیش ہو سکیں۔ لیکن اس کیس میں ایسی کوئی اطلاع نہیں دی گئی تھی، اس لیے درخواست گزاروں کو بغیر اطلاع دیے سزا نہیں دی جا سکتی تھی۔

ہائی کورٹ نے یہ فیصلہ کیا کہ مقدمہ کو شواہد کی کمی کی وجہ سے خارج کرنا بہت سخت فیصلہ تھا اور کیس کو میرٹ پر سننا چاہیے۔ چنانچہ ہائی کورٹ نے دونوں زیریں عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کو کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے کیس کو دوبارہ ٹرائل کورٹ میں بھیج دیا اور درخواست گزاروں کو شواہد پیش کرنے کے لیے دو مواقع فراہم کرنے کا حکم دیا۔

یوں درخواست گزاروں کی نظرثانی درخواست قبول کر لی گئی۔

2024 C L C 49

[Lahore]

Before Shahid Bilal Hassan, J

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others----Petitioners

Versus

RAHEELA YOUSAF and others----Respondents

Civil Revision No.18764 of 2022, heard on 11th October, 2022.

(a) High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders---

----Vol. I ,Chap. XIII, Para. 6---Civil Procedure Code ( V of 1908), S. 24-A(2) & O. XVII, R. 3---Transfer of case under administrative order---Scope---Civil Court dismissed suit of the petitioners for want of evidence under O. XVII, R. 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which judgment and decree was maintained by the Appellate Court---Validity---Record (order-sheet)revealed that the case was transferred from one Court to the other Court under administrative order passed by the concerned District Judge, however, no notice 'parvee' was issued by the Transferee Court to the parties or their counsel, whereas on said date (of being transferred)the Advocates were observing strike, but the Trial Court adjourned the case by giving absolute last opportunity for evidence of the plaintiffs---Instead of passing an order of giving absolute last opportunity, the Trial Court ought to have issued notices 'parvee' to the parties, because the case was transferred under administrative order and not under S. 24-A(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where the parties would have been directed to appear before the Transferee Court, failing which penal order could be passed against such party; however, in the present case, none of the requirements enunciated in the Para 6 of the Chapter XIII, Volume I of the High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders had been adhered to because nothing was on record to suggest that the Court from which the case was transferred ever informed the parties to appear before the Transferee Court on such and such date---Thus, a penal order could not be passed without putting the petitioners/plaintiffs on caution---Impugned order/judgment and decree, dismissing the suit for want of evidence, was harsh in nature---Cases should be decided on merits and technicalities should not be allowed to hinder the administration of justice---High Court set-aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and case was remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to afford two clear opportunities to the petitioners for production of their complete set of evidence---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----Ss. 115, 24-A(2) & O. XVII, R. 3---High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol.I, Chap. XIII, Para. 6---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Civil suit was transferred to another Civil Court under an administrative order---Notice 'parvee' was not issued to the party/plaintiff by the Transferee Court---Civil Court dismissed suit of the petitioners for want of evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which judgment and decree was maintained by the Appellate Court---Validity---High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, had ample power to correct the illegality and irregularity committed by the Courts below---High Court set-aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and case was remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to afford two clear opportunities to the petitioners for production of their complete set of evidence---Revision filed by the plaintiffs was allowed, in circumstances.

Mian Zaffar Iqbal Kalanauri for Petitioner.

Basharat Ali Gill, Additional Advocate General Punjab for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.

Respondents Nos.1 to 4 ex parte.

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.