1995SCMR773 (PLP)

AJMAL MIAN, J: ‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the Order dated 25‑1‑1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in FA.O. 27/93 filed by the petitioner against the Order dated 23‑11‑1992 of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala through which he accepted the respondent's appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 14‑4‑1992 of the Trial Court and remanded the case to the learned Trial Court for trial from the stage at which it was when the above judgment/decree was passed. The petitioner has, therefore, filed present petition for leave to appeal. 2.The brief facts are that on 14‑4‑1992 Civil Suit No. 77 of 1989, which was filed by the petitioner for specific performance of a sale agreement and possession, was fixed for recording evidence of the petitioner. It appears that the learned counsel for the respondent, who was engaged on that date, made a request for adjournment of the case on the ground that he was not prepared to cross‑examine the petitioner's witnesses. However, the above request was declined by order dated 14‑4‑1992 and the respondent's right to cross‑examine was closed. Then, the learned trial Court on the very date passed the judgment even without providing an opportunity to the respondent to produce his evidence. The above judgment/decree was assailed before the learned Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No. 301 of 1992, which was accepted and the judgment/decree was set aside and case was remanded to the trial Court in the following terms:‑‑ "As observed earlier since appellant was not allowed to produce his evidence nor his evidence was closed in haste, the trial Court has passed order dated 14‑4‑1992 ignoring the procedure as laid down, therefore, the trial Court has prejudiced the rights of the appellant without in due course of law. Hence, this Court, is left with no alternate but to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in haste ignoring the law of evidence and as a result the judgment and decree of the trial Court is declared void and the suit is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh trial in accordance with law by allowing the right of cross‑examination to the appellant and then to produce his evidence in accordance with law. The parties are accordingly directed to appear before the trial Court on 6‑12‑1992. The appeal is allowed without any order as to cost." The petitioner impugned the above order in the above F.A.O., which was dismissed in limine.

3. In support of the above petition Choudhry Muhammad Hussain Naqashbandi, learned ASC appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that the learned Appellate Court was not justified in setting aside the above judgment/decree of the trial Court. The above contention is devoid of any force, as the learned trial Court not only closed on 14‑4‑1992 the right of respondent to cross‑examine the petitioner's witnesses but also without providing an opportunity to the respondent to produce his evidence passed the decree on the very date. The above judgment/decree could not have been sustained.

4. The above appellate judgment before us seems to be just and proper. No interference is called for by this Court. Leave is refused. AA./A‑1178/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.