2008 PLP 1460 (CLC)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

For the purpose of this judgment reference to pleaded facts would not be necessary. Suffice it to say that on 20-9-2003 respondents Nos.1 to 4 (hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiffs) filed a suit against the petitioner and respondents Nos.5 and 6 seeking a declaration that order dated 18-9-2003 passed by respondent No.5 is illegal and void. The suit was contested by the petitioner and respondent No.4 by filing written statement. Issues were framed on 21-2-2005. The case was adjourned to 26-4-2005 for recording evidence of the plaintiffs. It was not present and on the request the case was adjourned to 14-6-2005. On this date again the evidence was absent and the adjournment was granted on the request of the plaintiffs and the case was adjourned to 28-7-2005. Again evidence was absent and the case was adjourned to 18-10-2005. On this date a last opportunity was granted for 15-12-2005. The evidence was absent and the case was adjourned to 1-2-2006 on request subject to cost of Rs.100. On this date evidence was again absent. The request for adjournment was refused and the evidence was closed. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree of even date. The plaintiffs filed an appeal which was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, on 8-4-2006 and the case was remanded back.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the plaintiff supports the impugned order.

3. I have gone trough the copies of the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have already narrated above the details of the entire proceedings that took place before the learned trial Court. I deem it appropriate to reproduce here the manner in which the learned Additional District Judge has dealt with the matter: "The judgment and decree was passed under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. The interim orders of the learned Trial Judge reveal that not a single date was given on the request of the appellant. However, the matter was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the appellant as depicted from the interim orders of the Court. To my mind, the criteria to justify the Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. is quite different. To fulfil the same it was obligatory for the learned Trial Judge to adjourn the matter on the request of appellant. The request of learned counsel is not considerable to justify the said Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. The presence of the parties at the time of announcement the adjournment is necessary. In all the interim orders of the learned Trial Court the presence of the parties was not marked. Further more, the revision petition in the Lahore High Court, Lahore is also pending at the time of announcing the impugned judgment and decree. Further now law favours the adjudication on merits." It will be seen that all adjournments noted above were granted on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The said observations of the learned Additional District Judge are not at all backed by any law or principle of law of equity. In our system of adjudication parties normally represented by the learned Advocates. In case the theory propounded by the learned Additional District Judge is taken to be correct. then no case can proceed once party had engaged a counsel. I called upon the learned counsel for the plaintiff to state reason as to why evidence was not produced. He has to state nothing. Civil revision is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside. The result would be that the judgment and decree dated 1-2-2006 of the learned trial Court dismissing the suit stands restored. No order as to cost." H.B.T./A-62/L Petition allowed.