1

IN THE COURT OF ANEES AHMAD,

CIVIL JUDGE CLASS-II,
PINDI BHATTIAN

Razia Bibi wife of Muhammad Akram, r/o Street No.5,

Mohallah Qazian Wala Jalalpur Bhattian, Tehsil Pindi
Bhattian, District Hafizabad.
(Plaintiffs)

VS

Manager Bank, U-Micro Finance Bank Ltd Branch

Info.1016-FC-1027-Jalal Pur Bhattian (Booth) Tehsil
Pindi Bhattian, District Hafizabad.
(Defendant)

Civil Suit No…… 237/2018.

Instituted On… 15.02.2018.
Decided On…… 08.05.2019.

SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

J U D G M E N T.

Per plaint, the plaintiff lady has filed suit for

permanent injunction by contending therein that she is widow
having no source of income to repay the loan amount to
defendant in lump sum, however, she asked the defendant to
get the loan repaid in monthly instalments but the defendant
refused to accept the genuine request of plaintiff rather
started to harass and blackmail the plaintiff lady through his
agent and police; that the defendant was asked to refrain
from receiving any amount from plaintiff illegally and forcibly
but he refused hence, this suit.
2. On the other hand, defendant contested the suit in
hand by filing controverted written statement wherein he
raised certain legal as well as factual objections and finally
prayed for dismissal of the same.
3. Out of divergent pleadings of parties following
issues were framed by this court on 22.11.2018:-
ISSUES:-
 2

1. Whether the plaintiff lady is entitled to decree for

permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff lady has no cause of action and

locus standi to file this suit, hence, the same is liable to
cancellation? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff lady is estopped from her words and

conduct to file this suit? OPD

4. Whether plaintiff lady has not come to the court with

clean hands hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD

5. Whether the suit of plaintiff lady is barred by law and the

same is liable to be dismissed? OPD

6. Whether the instant suit of plaintiff lady is false,

frivolous, baseless and the same has been filed just to
harass and blackmail the defendant which is liable to be
dismissed with special cost? OPD
7. Relief
4. After framing of issues, plaintiff was directed to
produce her evidence. In pursuance of court order, the
plaintiff herself alongwith one namely Aabid Ali appeared in
the court and got recorded their respective statements
(examination in chief) as PW-1 & PW-2 thereafter the suit was
fixed for cross examination but later on neither the plaintiff
herself appeared in court nor did produce her witness in the
court for cross examination despite availing six consecutive
opportunities. Last and final opportunity to produce evidence
was granted to plaintiff with clear warning that in case of her
failure to produce evidence; her right of evidence would be
struck off. With above said warning, the case was adjourned
to 08.05.2019. Today, the case was called repeatedly but
plaintiff remained failed to produce her evidence whereas the
learned counsel for plaintiff requested for an adjournment
without showing any reasonable or plausible cause. The
request for adjournment was turned down. Resultantly, right
of plaintiff lady to produce evidence was closed U/O XVII
Rule 3 of CPC.
5. Final arguments heard and record perused. My
issue wise findings are as under.
 3

ISSUE NO.1.
6. Onus to prove this issue was placed upon plaintiff
lady. In order to support her stance, the plaintiff herself
appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and also produced one
namely Abid Ali as PW-2 but later on the plaintiff neither
appeared herself nor did produce her witness for the sake of
cross examination therefore, the right of plaintiff to produce
evidence was struck off. The uncrossed statement of plaintiff
and her witness had no value in the eyes of law therefore it
could rightly be held that the plaintiff lady remained failed to
produce evidence in order to substantiate her stance; hence,
this issue is answered in negative.
ISSUE NO. 02 to 6.
7. Onus to prove these issues was placed upon the
defendant. As the plaintiff lady failed to adduce any evidence
in support of issue no.1; therefore, neither the defendant was
asked nor he himself opted to produce any evidence on these
issues hence these issues had become redundant.
RELIEF
8. In view of my findings on fore-going issues, instant
suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction is hereby
dismissed for want of evidence. Decree sheet be drawn
accordingly. No order as to costs. Ahlmad Usman Nabi is
directed to consign the file to the record room after its due
completion.

Announced:
08.05.2019. Anees Ahmad,
Civil Judge Class-II,
Pindi Bhattian

Certified that this judgment consists of three pages, each

page has been dictated, read over, corrected and signed by me.

Dated:08.05.2019.

Civil Judge Class-II,

Pindi Bhattian
 4

Mumtaz Ahmad etc vs. Ikram Ullah etc.

Suit for permanent injunction.
08.05.2019
Present: - Ch. Irfan Ullah Tarar advocate learned counsel for
the plaintiff.
Rana Asif Ali advocate learned counsel for the
defendant.
Evidence of plaintiff is not present.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks
adjournment for evidence of plaintiff. On request for
adjournment, record was perused. Perusal of record revealed
that after framing of issues, plaintiff was directed to produce
her evidence. In pursuance of court order, the plaintiff herself
alongwith one namely Aabid Ali appeared in the court and got
recorded their respective statements (examination in chief) as
PW-1 & PW-2 thereafter the suit was fixed for cross
examination but later on neither the plaintiff herself appeared
in court nor did produce her witness for cross examination
despite availing six consecutive opportunities. Last and final
opportunity to produce evidence was granted to plaintiff with
clear warning that in case of her failure to produce evidence;
her right of evidence would be struck off. With above said
warning, the case was adjourned to 08.05.2019. Today, the
case was called repeatedly but plaintiff lady remained failed to
produce her evidence whereas the learned counsel for plaintiff
requested for an adjournment without showing any
reasonable or plausible cause. As no plausible or reasonable
cause for adjournment has been shown form plaintiff side
therefore, further adjournment cannot be granted rather the
request for adjournment is hereby turned down. Resultantly,
right of plaintiff to produce evidence is closed U/O XVII Rule 3
of CPC and suit in hand is hereby dismissed due to want of
evidence through separate judgment in English of even date.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. No order as to cots.
Ahlmad Usman Nabi is directed to consign the file to the
record after its due completion.
 5

Announced: Anees Ahmad,

08.05.2019. Civil Judge Class II,
Pindi Bhattian.