P L D 1960 (W (PLP)

Z. A. Chishti and Abdul Khan for Respondent. Dates of hearing : 14th ; 21st December 1959 and 4th January 1960. This revision application arises from an order of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court granting the application of the present respondent for a distress warrant. The grievance of the petitioner before me is that he was not given an opportunity to substantiate his objections which he had filed to the petition. It was urged that neither any evidence was recorded nor his advocate was heard. It is contended that having regard to the nature of the serious dispute between the parties with regard to the ownership itself of the property in question it was necessary that sufficient opportunity should have been given to enable the petitioner to show that he was not the tenant of the respondent. When the matter came up before me for hearing on 14‑12‑59, Mr. Chishti, the learned Advocate for the respondent, stated that both the petitioner and the opponent in the Court below had entered the witness box and were examined on oath. Upon this statement having been made I gave time to the learned counsel for the respondent to produce copies of the evidence, because if such evidence had been taken there would be no substance in the con tention that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to substantiate his objections. The case was then fixed for 21‑12‑1959, on which date Mr. Chishti appeared again and stated that he had personally been to the record office of the Small Causes Court but had not been able to trace the register of the relevant period, in which the evidence in question might have been taken down. He asked for one week's further time to enable him to produce the copies. Time was therefore granted and the matter has now come up before me again today. Mr. Chishti has not appeared today, instead Mr. Abdul Karim has filed his power and has applied for an adjournment on the ground that he has been engaged in the case today. I rejected that application because I have already heard the arguments in this case and all that had remained to be done was the production of the copies of the evidence if the same were available. The fact that no copies of the evidence have been produced must necessarily lead to an inference that no evidence had been recorded. I, therefore, consider that the matter was disposed of by the Court below in rather an unsatisfactory manner. The mere fact that a distress warrant proceeding is conducted in a summary manner does not mean that where evidence becomes necessary and is A offered it should not be recorded. It was all the more necessary in this case because the opponent had challenged the right of the petitioner in the Court below to claim any rent. That challenge might have been ill‑founded but it had to be enquired into. This was not done. I, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court passed on 22‑2‑1958, and direct that be shall hear such evidence as is produced by the parties and then decide the matter according to law. The costs of this application shall be the costs in the main cause. K. M. A. Petition accepted.