2008 SCMR 322 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.
Posted on: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 07:41:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015