Jumoo and Others Thr. Attorney Muhammad Chohan (Appellant) VS The Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)

o1

CIIRTIFI TEO CO OF INDFI

tlnd Appeal- 59 of 2024

Jumoo & others

Vs.

The Provincc of Sindh & others

ru-Q-lllo,lJKl' OI; SII{pl I

lylttttsititttt ot'tm _ Sitrrllc.

Mr. Justice Mohanrmad l(arim l(han Agha

Datcs of hearing : 06-08-2024

Dccided on 06-08-2024

(a)Judgment trpproved for Reporting Yes

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the jud*uteut */Order is based upon or enunciates a principle ollari */decides a questiou of larv which is of flrst impression/distingLrishes/. Over-rLrles,' rer erses/explains a previous dccision.

* Strike orit rvhichever is not applicable.

NO'I'E: - (i) This slip is only to be used rvhen some action is to be raken.

(ii)If the slip is used, the l(eadcr nlr.rst attach it to the top of thc tiLst page o1' the .i ucl gnrcrrt.

(iii)I{eaclcr nrust asl< thc.lucluc ru'iling the.ludgment u'hcthcl rhc .[udgrncnt is allllloved lbL rcpolting,

(iv)Tlrose directions rvhich nre not to be used should be deleted.

,rltt-1;t- ,..01,:,Q \o x uupul; llrpl Jttrll , 'l(.1

IN ]'I.III [IIGI-I CO[JII'T OF SINI)II A'J'KN RNCIII

tl"'rA1r;rcrrl Nu, *rr'l- -^zoz,t

l. .ltrlrrotr Sorr ol't\nloo l(rrtrte.itl turrv tlcccrrscrl tlrrough lris lirlknvirrg lcgtl rcprtscrtlll ivcllcgll hcirsI rr. Ir{uhnurnrad S/o Kungal (rrcplrcrv) Sincr.'died tluurgh his lcgnl hciLs, i. Srmrr Wd/o Muhntrrnracl l(orejo ii. I{ozccna D/o Kangal iii. Snnrina D/o l(nngal ir,. I{ubina D/o Kangal \,. Iiarzarra D/o l(angal 'r,i. Saddam Hussain S/o Kangal vii. Shahnarvaz S/o I(angal viii, Shahjan S/o Kangal Above Sr.No.a.ii to a,viii are nrinors through their Mother Sararr Wdio Muhantmad Korajo, CNIC No.41401-1899580-9, R/o Goth Mohsin Korajo, Dakhana Gora Bart, Kortri Allah Rakhyo Shah, Tehsil Gorabar, District Thatta.

b. Rasool Bux S/o I(arrgal (nephew). c. Rashid S/o Kangal (nephew). d. Mst. Ameena Dlo Karlgal (niece). e. Mst. Zeenat D/o Kangal (niece). f. Mst, Rehmat D/o I(angal (niece). g. Mst, Sanghar D/o Kangal (niece). h. Qasim S/o l-lussain (nephew). i. Gulan D/o l-lussain (niccc), j, Arnir Bux S/o l-lussain (nepherv), It. Siddique S/o Umar (nephew). l. I"lanif S/o Un:ar (ncphew), nr. Mst, I{aleenra D/o Untar (niccc). n. Sufan S/o Sullcnran (ncphew).

0.Mst, Mariam D/o Sullentan (niece). (a to g) brother's Sons/Daughters and rest sister's Sons/Daughters,

2.Uris Slo Jumro

Pagc I of9

ORDDR SHEET

IN THE I.I IGH COU RT OF S INDH AT KAR CHI

Ilncl Appeal No.59 of 2024 Datc Order r.vith ltln at.ure of Ju dges

FI?DSI-I CASII

l. Iror orclcr on officc objcction a/w reply 2, Ii'or ot'clcr on CMA No.1854/2024

3.For hcaring of marin case.

4., Iror <rrclcr on CMA No.185512024

Jumos & Othors ...,.,,..V........Province of Sindh & Others' Syed Flasan Jafri, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mohammad Kq.rim Khan Agha, J. Jumoo, who is appcllant in this case, has filed a suit regarding a dispr-rte in conncction with ownership of a land against the respondent. 'l'hc suit bearing No"42 of 2016 proceeded in the Court of Sr. Civil Judge, Thatta and in that suit plaintiff failed to prodt-tce any evidence despite being given sufficient opportunity. This led to the findings that the suit had not been proven ancl as such it was dismissed under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC vide judgment dated 20.A3.2021. The appellant, originally petitioner, filcd an appeal before the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Jucige / Model Criminal Trial Courl, Thatta which through a cleleriled judgment upheld the earlier order and dismissed thc appcal vide judgment dated 30.11.2021. Hence he has lllccl this IInd appeal.

2.Learned counsel for the appellant has contendcd t}-rat the appeal should nclt havc bcen dismisscd on mcriLs itnd n<; evidence was led by thc appcllant so that the judgment be scl- aside and the case bc remanded to the trial Courl so that the appellant/plairrtiff bc givcn an opportunity to lci,rcl his cvidence ancl tlrcn lhe cersc bc decided on merits.

3.This appeal l'ras bcen filed under Scction 100 CPC which is set out below for ease of reference:- o'7OO, Seconcf appeal.--(l) Saue as otlrcrutise c,r7:r'es.sft7 prouiclecl irz the bodtl o{'this Code or bt1 anll otlL(:t' lctru fot the tirne being ilt forc:e, an appeal shalt lie to llrr. l-lic1h court fr-ont euertl clecree passed in apysear bt1 rtrtrl ('oi,'l suborrlinaLe to a Fliglt courr on ana of tltt: l'ollott.tirtcl qrau.nds, natnely:,

(a)the decision being contrary to law or to sone usage

IL

lwuirtg the force of latu;

(b)ttrc decisiort lruuing faited to determitTe sotne mateial issue of taw or Ltsage hauhq the force of law; (ci a srrbstnntfal en'or or defect in the procedure prouided by flris Cacle or by urt11 otlrcr law for the tilne bein'g in frtrcc,, tulticlt rrrolllrossitilg haue procluced error or defect irt l/rr: rlecisiorr o.[ tlu: cuse upott tne,rits."

4.St:ction l0l (ll'(l is rtlso scI clut bclr:w for casc ol rc{'crcrrcc:- "sectlon l?l - Sccortd appeal on no other grounds: 1Vo secortcl appeal s/rcrll lte except on tLrc rlrounds nrcntiorrcd ilt sectiott 100."

5.It is clear that under Section 100 CPC an appeal to this Court lies only il there is an error in law in the impugned judgment.

6.Order XVII Rule 3 CPC under which the suit r'vas dismissed is set out below for ease of reference:- "Order XVII Rule 3: Courl maA proceed notwithstanding either partA fails to produce euidence, etc- - Where any parlg to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his euidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perforun any other act necessarg to the further progress of tlrc suit, for which time has been allouted, the Court mag, notwithstanding such default, proceed to decide the suit for-thutith."

T. From perusal of order dated 20.03.2021 it is clcar that the trial Court has rightly applied Order XVII Rule 3 CPC. For ease of reference paragraph 6, 7 & 8 of thc impr:gned judgment are set out below:-

u06. Iirave consiclcrccl the contentions ol'Iearrled Aclvoca[e lrrr Defetrclants arnd perused the tnliterial on recorcl, Pcrusal revcals that in Lhe instant sttit, issrles were lratned on 09.02.2018, but Plaintills lailed to lead evidcncc till 05.03.2019 u,hen, Sutit s'as clisntisseci for non-l)roseclttion viclc orcler dated 05.03.20i9 reacling as undct':

"Srrit called, Attontetl of Plaintiff is present. Junior courtsel of Plailtiff is present. Counsel for Defendant No.17 is presenl.. The matter was fixed for euiclettce of ll,rlgrs t

Plaintiff .but he faited to aclduce his euidence. The petusal \3 of case lile trunspires llrut issues in this matter Lrctd been settlecl on O9-O2.2017 and after disposul of all irilerlauttonl altplicotions Plaintiff On 01-02-201 B LUas direclerl to urldttut t'uidence and therectftet' !oc|.ar1 is eiqlillr rlafu, of hcadnrl ltrtl lhe Plaintiff is miseraltltl fctilecl lo odrlrrcc, lis cuirk'rtu, front which il cctn be sufelq helcl lltol llu, l'luilttil'l'i.s rrol irt!ere,sted lo prctceecl llre rncttter lntl orrlrl to lilrtt' tnr llrt' se,ne; result.un.tltl the Suil of the I'lnhttil'l' i.s r/i.srrris.'irrr l in n,orl-proseatliotr. Order nctrutliru;/.r1. "

t)7. Sttlrsr:clttt'tttly, 1;ursunnt. to irpplir:zrliort r.rncler Orrlrr IX lttrlc q C,l',C., ancJ on lhc: <tltir:r:tirn oI Aclvtrt'itlt: [or l)clcrrrlirnt No. 17, virl<: rtrrk:r cler tr:ri Ob,Ott.2O2O, $urit wir$ rcstored to its origin;tl sLagc ol l']lairt tif[ eviclcncc, bttl"' sincc 06-08-2020 Plaint i ffs fzr i lr:cl tri comc lorwarrl [o lcad Lheir cvidcncc, thourgh, all intcrlocutor applications filed by therrr in Ihr; irrtcrvcning period oi 06-08-2020 to 2O-O?,-2()21 were promptly allowccl on the no ob.iection of learned Advocale for Defe ndant No.17, with sole ob.iect to dccide the matter on merits. The defiant conclur.:1. of the; Plaintiffs are evident from the orders dated O8-O9-2O2O, |4-O9-2O2O, l2-lo-2024, which for brevity sake, are not incorporated in the instant judgment as w'ell persistent adjournment applications placed on recorcl at Exhibit No. 84, 85, &, 86 of the third part o[ the R&Ps. Even today, learned Advocate for Plaintifis fitecl ad.journment application, which in the given siturertion is rvithout substance arrd is dismissed.

08.From the conduct of Plaintiff narrated in preceding paras, it is apparent that Plaintiffs have indulged into exploiting rules & procedures tantamount to abuse of process of Court and intentionally avoiding to lead evidence, therefore, Court has no alternate except to pronounce judgment under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC."

8.This lineling clcarly shows that the Order XVll Rule 3 CPC was applicd by lhc [rierl Court as thc plainLi[[ for whatever rcasons bcsl lcnr>r,r,r-r Lo ]rimself tailed to prodr,rcc his evidence which lcd lo lhc atloresaid order dismissing Lhc suril.

g, On appcarl, oncc ergain an elaborate judgmcnt dated 30.1 L2O23 was perssecl by the Addl. Distric[ Judge 'l'halta in I Civil Suit No.l9/2021 which r-rpheld the earlier order o[ rhe Trial Court as there was found to be no legal infirmity in the ) sarrle.4

nlAlvls

10.Again findings in the judgment dated 3o'11 '2023 tt is \ quite clearly mentioned why the Order XVII Rule 3 cPC was applicable to this case and that it was rightly found by upholding the triat jucigment and dismissing Lhe suit' courl's

11.I hatvc arlso gonc through both the judgmcnts and matcrial on rccorcl ancl louncl Lhat both of the said judgments are well rcasonccl nncl I'r-rlly in accordancc with thc law and that the appcllant has not bcen able to point oul any legai infirrnity in the dismissal o[ his sr-rit.

12.As such the appeal is dismissed in liminc zrlongwith listed applications.

e/"y' *r

r\lAIUrS

I

l