Adjournment Judgements

 

Adjournment Judgements

Section 149 & O.17.R.3

2011 SCMR 23-43

If counsel of accused was not appearing in court even after taking too many adjournments , Trial Court could either have provided him a defence counsel at State expense or given him last opportunity to make an alternate arrangement---Trial Court did not adopt the said course and instead gave a total surprise to accused by asking him to cross-examine the eye-witnesses himself for which obviously neither he had the requisite expertise, nor he was prepared to do so---Procedure adopted by Trial Court reflected miscarriage of justice---Conviction and sentence of accused were consequently set aside and the case was remitted to Trial Court to decide the same afresh after giving one opportunity to accused to cross-examine the two eye-witnesses---Appeal was disposed of accordingly

2008 SCMR 322-44

Closing right of adverse party to cross-examine witnesses after refusing to him adjournment sought on ground of ailment of his counsel---Validity---Date on which evidence had been recorded was fixed for such purpose, about which adverse party had knowledge---Time had been granted to adverse party to fetch his counsel or engage a new counsel, for which purpose case had been kept pending from 8-00 a.m. to 3-00 p.m.---Statements of witnesses had been recorded in presence of newly appointed counsel, who had not availed opportunity provided to him to cross-examine witnesses---One witness had been summoned from Karachi---Adjournment could not be claimed as of right---Trial Court/Tribunal had discretion to grant or refuse adjournment---Adverse party had availed 35 adjournments on one pretext or the other---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could be exercised in a case, where subordinate Court/Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction or acted without jurisdiction---Refusal of adjournment by Trial Court was not illegal or capricious---High Court rightly dismissed Constitutional petition in circumstances.

2008 SCMR 269-45

S. 13---Ejectment proceedings---Filing of affidavit by tenant of his witnesses---Failure of tenant to produce his witnesses for cross-examination by landlord despite availing several adjournments ---Striking off tenant's right of defence by Rent Controller---Validity---Record showed that landlord had not even once objected to any of adjournments of case sought by tenant---All such adjournments would be deemed to be granted with mutual consent of parties---Supreme Court set aside impugned order and provided opportunity to tenant to produce evidence subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000.

2006 PLD 196 SC-46

S. 34---Stay of proceedings in suit---Filing of application under S.34 of Arbitration Act, 1940 by defendant after having availed several adjournments for filing written statement, contested application for interim injunction and applied for rejection of plaint---Validity---Plea of referring matter to arbitrator should be raised promptly at the very first opportunity and delay on any pretext would estop party from seeking stay of proceedings in the suit---Such act of defendant would show his intention to participate and defend suit before Court-Frequent requests for adjournment for filing written statement would fall within ambit of phrase "taking any other steps in the proceedings" as used in S.34 of Arbitration Act, 1940---Defendant had taken positive steps for furtherance of proceedings in suit---Application for stay of' proceedings in suit was dismissed in circumstance.

2005 PLD 322 SC-47

O. XXXVII, R. 3(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Suit for recovery of money on the basis of pronote---Grant of leave to defend the suit---Scope---Provisions of O.XXXVII, R. 3(2), C.P.C. lay down and empower the Court to grant leave to defend either unconditionally or subject to such terms as to payment into Court or giving security---Demand of the Court for furnishing security was thus not unlawful ---Defendant in the present case, had not objected to the order for furnishing of security by the Court and sought variousadjournments to arrange for the security---Decree, on account of non¬compliance of the order of the Court was rightly passed by the District Judge and upheld by the High Court---No valid reasons being available to interfere, Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

2005 SCMR 1673-48

O. XVII, R.3---Dismissal of suit for non-production of evidence by plaintiff in spite of having availed 14adjournments for such purpose---Validity---Such order would not warrant any interference.& other Judgments 2014 CLC 160. 2014 SCMR 637

2004 PLD 489 SC-49

O. XVII, R. 3 & O. XIX, R. 2---Defendant's failure to produce evidence in spite of obtaining repeatedadjournments ---Trial Court decreed suit after considering plaintiff's evidence---Validity--Defendant's counsel in his affidavit had himself admitted his appearance before Court on an earlier date of hearing---Plaintiff could not cross examine deponent due to his non-appearance---Such affidavit would not be considered as evidence---Exercise of power by Trial Court under O.XVII, R. 3; C.P.C. in such circumstances was, held, to be legal.

2004 SCMR 1160-50

S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/149--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Cancellation of bail--Delay in conclusion of the trial had occasioned because of the adjournments sought on behalf of accused---Specific role of firing at both the deceased was attributed to the accused---Participation of accused in the occurrence was corroborated by the presence of so many fire-arm injures on the person of the deceased---Bail allowed to accused by High Court was cancelled in circumstances.

2003 PLD 180 SC-51

Civil Procedure Code --Order XVII of C.P.C. adjournments ----O. XVII, Rr.3, 2, 1 & O.IX---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Where on any date the hearing of the suit is adjourned and parties or any of them failed to appear, Court, under, O.XVII, R.2, C.P.C. may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed by O.IX, C.P.C.---Petitioner, in the present case, admittedly failed to cause attendance of his witnesses from 3-1-1995 to 14-7-1999 without any valid reason--Neither the petitioner nor his witnesses or his counsel was present even on the last date of hearing, which was a sufficient cause to close his evidence--Trial Court, in circumstances, while exercising jurisdiction under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. had not committed any illegality.

2003 SCMR 1701-52

S. 1---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VIII, Rr. 1 & 10---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Suit for compensation--¬Defendants did not file written statement within prescribed time and also within further time granted by Court---Time was extended by Court on payment of costs, but neither written statement was filed nor costs were paid, rather adjournments were sought by defendants, which were declined---Defendants' counsel declined to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses present in Court---Suit decreed by Trial Court was upheld by Appellate Court---No illegality or irregularity in impugned judgment was found calling for interference---Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave.

2002 PLD 546 SC 1999 SCMR 105 1998 SCMR 897

1998 SCMR 228 1998 SCMR 2296 1998 SCMR 1067

1997 SCMR 1118 1997 SCMR 924 1997 SCMR 32

1997 PLD 73 1996 SCMR 1967 1995 SCMR 773

1995 SCMR 1063 1993 SCMR 504 1993 SCMR 2026

1992 SCMR 1895 NLR 1990 SCJ 578