1999 PLP 850 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑

0. XVII, R.3‑‑‑Evidence of defendant (appellant) closed down‑‑‑Appellant was given numerous opportunities to produce his evidence but he failed to do so‑‑‑Appellant had already deposited necessary expenses in the Court for summoning of a witness, a Government employee‑‑‑Evidence of summoned witness was not closed down‑‑‑Request of defendant (appellant) to examine one more witness‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Although defendant/appellant's conduct in preliminary evidence had not been praiseworthy, yet one opportunity should have been given to appellant to produce his evidence on the day when evidence of summoned witness was to be recorded. Muhammad Ayub Sabir, Advocate for Appellants. Ch. Muhatnmad Azam Khan, Advocate for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1996. MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J.‑‑‑ This appeal, with the leave of the Court, has been directed against an order recorded by the High Court on June 20, 1996, whereby the revision petition filed by the appellants herein was dismissed.

2. The precise facts, forming the background of the present controversy are that a suit for declaration with regard to the suit land alongwith a prayer for consequential relief of possession was filed in the Court of Sub‑Judge by the plaintiffs‑respondents. The suit was resisted by the defendants‑appellants. Necessary issues were framed. After production of the evidence by the plaintiffs, the defendants‑appellants were ordered to produce their evidence who after availing numerous opportunities failed to produce their evidence as such the same was closed on October 17, 1996, by the trial Court. The appellants herein filed a revision petition in the High Court which was dismissed vide the order impugned in the present appeal.

3. In support of appeal, Mr. Muhammad Ayub Sabir, the learned counsel has strenuously contended that the appellants‑defendants have already deposited the necessary expenses of Office Qanoongo to be produced as their witness and it was enjoined upon the trial Court to summon the said witness and to get his statement recorded, who was a Government servant. According to the learned counsel when the statement of Office Qanoongo yet remains to be recorded by the trial Court and his evidence has not been closed, there seems to be no point in closing the evidence of other witnesses sought to be produced by the defendants‑appellants. The learned counsel argued that in the interest of justice and fair play an opportunity should have been provided to the appellants defendants for producing their evidence.

4. Controverting the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, Ch. Muhammad Azam Khan, the learned counsel for respondents, has contended that appellants were provided as many as 23 opportunities but they failed to produce any evidence. The conduct of the appellants shows that they do not deserve any further latitude to be given in the matter of production of evidence and the Courts are always expected for speedy disposal of the cases.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record made available with care, the only point to be resolved is as to whether the appellants‑defendants should be given an opportunity to produce their evidence, especially so when the evidence of Office Qanoongo whose expenses have been duly deposited by the appellants yet remains to be recorded. The evidence of Office Qanoongo, who is a Government employee was not closed but was summoned to get his statement recorded. We have noted that although the conduct of appellants‑defendants in matter of availing numerous opportunities A for producing their evidence has not been fair enough but all the same when the statement of ‑ Office Qanoongo, the summoned witness, yet remains to be recorded by the trial Court, there is no harm in allowing one of the defendants to get his statement recorded. In view of above, by accepting the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the High Court, we direct the trial Court that on the day of recording the statement of Office Qanoongo, the summoned witness, appellants B may be allowed the opportunity to produce one of the defendants as their witness. However. this will be a last opportunity after which no further time shall be given to the appellants. The appeal, thus, stands accepted in the terms IB indicated above. Q.M.H./M.A.K./329/SC (AJ&K) Appeal accepted.