1999 PLP 2045 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑O. XVII, R. 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Petitioners were allowed to produce additional witness‑‑‑Despite the fact that repeated opportunities were given to petitioners, they failed to produce their witness‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Act of petitioners amounted to delaying tactics to prolong litigation and they were least interested to pursue their case‑‑‑Order of closing down the evidence was competently passed: in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution cannot interfere into the orders competently passed by Court of competent jurisdiction. Muhammad Esa Khan for Petitioner. Through the writ petition in hand Muhammad Zubair and 4 others, have challenged the orders,, dated 3‑11‑1996 and 24‑10‑1997, to be illegal and unlawful whereby the learned Civil Judge, Nowshera by invoking the penal provision of Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C.,, closed the evidence of the petitioners and their application for summoning Shahzad Gul witness through Court was dismissed, which order was maintained by the learned Additional District Judge, Haripur camp at Nowshera by dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners.

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated to the petition are that the petitioners brought a suit for declaration and/or in alternative for possession of the suit property, as detailed in the heading of the plaint: that the defendant‑respondents Nos. l to 10 were summoned out of whom defendants 1. 2 and 10 resisted the suit and the rest of the defendants did not respond, to the process, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte; that the petitioner produced 7 witnesses at different occasions. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted an application for summoning one Shahzad Gul through Court, which application was rejected and the evidence of the petitioners was closed applying provision of Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. Discontented with the same, the petitioners filed revision petition before District Judge, Nowshera, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Haripur camp at Nowshera on 24‑10‑1997. Hence the present writ petition.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the file.

4. Perusal of the file would show that the petitioners submitted an application for the production of additional witness on 18‑2‑1996 who had not been cited as witness in the list of witnesses, which was accepted by the trial Court on 3‑10‑1996 and case was adjourned for remaining evidence of the plaintiff‑petitioners but on the next date they failed to produce their evidence. On 16‑10‑1996 final opportunity was given to the plaintiff‑petitioners to produce their evidence, despite that they failed to produce their evidence. The conduct of the petitioners show that they were least interested to pursue their case rather they used to apply delaying tactics to prolong the litigation, In the facts sand circumstances of this case, the learned Trail Court has rightly applied the provision of Order 17, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the learned Additional District Judge has also properly maintained the findings of the learned Trial Court. In writ Jurisdiction, this Court cannot interfere into the orders competently passed by Courts of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, this writ petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed in limine alongwith C.M. No.2367 of 1997. Q.M.H./M.A.K./72‑P Petition dismissed.