2004 PLP D1285 (MLD)

(1) Writ Petition No.262 of 2004 Dost Muhammad v. Hameeda Begum and others (2) Writ Petition No.263 of 2004 Mahmood Ali and others v. Hameeda Begum and others. This order intends to dispose of the above captioned two writ petitions as such both these admit common question of law and facts.

2. Through these Constitutional petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution pf Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioners have sought for setting aside orders dated 16‑6‑2003 and 22‑9‑2003 being illegal and without lawful authority.

3. Briefly narrated the facts of the case giving rise to these Constitutional petitions are that a suit for possession through partition is pending in the learned trial Court wherein the petitioners were required to produced evidence on 16-6‑2003. During the proceedings of the case, respondents Nos.2 and 3 have also filed an application seeking cancellation of written statement which was dismissed on 3‑4‑2003 by the learned trial Court against which they filed a revision petition which was also dismissed on 9‑6‑2003 by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan; that on 16‑6‑2003 the petitioners could not produce their evidence and as result of which ‑the learned trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioners/defendants. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners/defendants filed a revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge Multan who also dismissed the same vide order dated 22‑9‑2003, hence these Constitutional petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the impugned order passed by the learned lower Courts are illegal and without jurisdiction; that the learned trial Court had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the petitioners for producing their evidence and the impugned orders passed by the learned lower Courts for closing their evidence under Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C. are liable to be set aside. In this respect the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on PLD 1986 SC 129 and PLD 1987 Lah. 157.

5. On the contrary the learned counsel for the respondents strongly repelled the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners contending that the petitioners were afforded sufficient opportunities for producing their evidence but they miserably failed to do the same, therefore, the learned Lower Court was justified while closing their evidence under Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C. Reliance is placed on PLD 1971 SC 434 and PLD 1986 SC 129.

6. Arguments heard. Record perused.

7. It evidences from the record that the controversy between the parties relates to the fact that as to whether the petitioners were afforded sufficient opportunities by the leaned trial Court for producing their evidence or their evidence was closed under Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C. without affording them sufficient opportunities for the purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments contended that though the petitioners were not afforded sufficient opportunities to produce their evidence yet the case remained adjourned not at the fault of the petitioners but was due to the revision petition filed by defendant No.

1. There is no denying the fact that the civil suit was instituted in June, 2000 and the petitioners submitted their written statement on 12‑12‑2000. The learned counsel for the respondents during the course of his arguments has drawn my attention towards the fact that fourteen opportunities were afforded to the petitioners but they miserably failed to avail the same. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents further finds support from the perusal of order sheet of the learned trial Court dated 16‑1‑2003 which reveals that the evidence of the petitioners was not present and the case was adjourned for 23‑1‑2003 and the petitioners were given last opportunity for the purpose. On the said date the petitioners again could not produce their evidence and the case was adjourned for 3‑2‑2003. On 3‑2‑2003 the petitioners again failed to do the needful and the case was adjourned to 17‑2‑2003 subject to payment of costs of Rs.200. Thereafter sufficient opportunities were afforded to the petitioners for the production of their evidence i.e. 7‑6‑2003, 12‑6‑2003 and 16‑6‑2003. In this view of the matter, it is evident that the learned trial Court had afforded much time to the petitioners for the purpose but they miserably failed to avail the same, therefore, in my view, there was no recourse to the learned trial Court except to pass the impugned order by way of closing their evidence.

8. In view of the above discussion and relying upon the aforesaid judicial precedents, the impugned orders passed by the learned Lower Courts do not suffer from any illegality and call for no interference by this Court. Resultantly, I find no merits in these Constitutional petitions which are hereby dismissed. H.B.T./D‑12/L Petitions dismissed.