Courts must not issue ambiguous orders: LHC

  • Rules courts are under obligation to facilitate the litigants to a maximum extent by passing a clear order
Updated 16 Apr, 2023

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) held that the courts are under obligation to facilitate the litigants to a maximum extent by passing a clear order and giving directions to the litigant without any ambiguity.

The court further observed that the litigant should not be pushed into realm of guess work, where in an uncertain situation, he is unable how to proceed and is left guessing as to in what manner to comply with the order of the court.

The court said once it is established that initial error was committed by the civil judge then the blame could not be shifted to the party in view of well embedded principle that “an act of court shall prejudice none”.

The court passed these observations in a petition of one Manzoor Ahmad and directed the trial court to provide another opportunity to the appellants to bring their evidence in the court and get the same recorded.

The court said the impugned order was not passed in clear and unambiguous terms and hence not sustainable in view of the principles laid down by the apex court.

The court observed as the appellants have claimed to have paid the entire amount of consideration against the agreement to the respondents and nothing is outstanding; hence, it would be in the interest of justice that matter is decided on its merits and not on technical grounds besides nothing terrible would happen if another opportunity is allowed to the appellants to lead evidence rather the same would advance the cause of justice.

The appellant filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell against the respondent Khalid Hassan Khan, which was contested by the respondents and issues were framed.

The matter was adjourned when evidence was available in the court as per attendance marked by the court; however, in the body of the order it was mentioned that evidence was not available and matter was adjourned for recording of evidence at the appellants’ request subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500. The petitioner challenged the impugned order and got relief.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023

Read Comments