SLAMABAD (APP) - The Supreme Court has held that a party’s right to lead evidence could not be struck off under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on account of factors beyond its control, such as a lawyers’ strike, public holiday, judge’s leave or transfer of a court.
The court observed that the provision was penal in nature and therefore had to be construed strictly, adding that it could be invoked only when all the conditions prescribed by law were fulfilled.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan allowed an appeal concerning a right of pre-emption over 12 kanals of land and set aside the judgments of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, the appellate court and the trial court. The case was remanded to the trial court for fresh adjudication.
The Supreme Court noted that the trial court had struck off the plaintiffs’ right to lead evidence on October 14, 2009, and dismissed the suit, although the previous hearing had been adjourned because of a lawyers’ strike and not due to any request or negligence on the part of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the court held, the basic legal condition for invoking Order XVII Rule 3 was absent.
The Supreme Court further held that although an appeal was available against the relevant order, a review petition was also maintainable because the trial court had exercised a jurisdiction that it did not possess in law. The review petition, therefore, could not have been dismissed merely on a technical ground.
Restoring the case to its original number, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to provide the plaintiffs a proper opportunity to produce their evidence, followed by an opportunity for the opposing party to produce evidence in rebuttal, and thereafter decide the case afresh in accordance with law.
The court also directed that the 17-year-old case be decided within six months, with day-to-day hearings to be conducted, if necessary.
The judgment expressed serious concern over the growing practice of unnecessary adjournments and observed that lawyers should accept only as many cases as they could handle in a timely and responsible manner. Engagement in another court, it added, could not invariably constitute a reasonable ground for seeking an adjournment.
The Supreme Court also directed trial courts to avoid repeatedly issuing orders described as “last opportunity,” “final opportunity” or “last and final opportunity,” observing that such practices undermined the significance of judicial orders.
The court said that where granting a further adjournment was unavoidable, reasons should be recorded in writing and effective costs imposed to discourage unnecessary delay.
The Supreme Court observed that the directions contained in the judgment concerning effective case management, professional responsibility of lawyers and improvement of the civil justice system were of significance for the judicial system throughout the country.
The Registrar’s Office was directed to circulate copies of the judgment to the Chief Justices of all High Courts, the provincial bar councils and the Islamabad Bar Council so that judicial officers and lawyers could conduct proceedings in an effective, organised and lawful manner in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.