2013 PLP 2553 (YLR)

MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.

Petitioners, through instant Revision Petition, have impugned the concurrent findings of two courts below, whereby their suit against respondents was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration etc. on 20-5-2006 which was contested by the respondents by filing written statement. Issues were framed on 13-1-2006 and thereafter parties were directed to adduce their evidence but despite so many opportunities, the petitioners did not produce their evidence. So, the learned trial Court was left with no alternative but to close the evidence of the petitioners and accordingly, the same was closed under Order XVII Rule 3, C.P.C. Consequently, the suit was dismissed on 3-3-2013 by the learned Civil Judge, Charsadda which was challenged in appeal before the learned District Judge, Charsadda, who vide judgment and order dated 10-11-2012 also dismissed the same, hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the available record.

4. Perusal of the record would reveal that after examination of official witnesses from 17-2-2010 time and again, the petitioners were directed to produce their oral evidence but they did not produce the same. Notice under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. was issued vide order dated 30-9-2010 and thrice costs were imposed but the petitioners failed to comply with the orders of Court. On 15-2-2012 last chance with warning of proceeding under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. was given to them but in vain and consequently their evidence was struck off under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. and the suit was dismissed which was challenged in appeal and the learned Appellate Court while concurred with its finding had observed that petitioners deliberately failed to produce their evidence despite 3/4 times, the case was adjourned on payment of cost and since long repeated notices under Order XVII Rule 3, C.P.C. were given to them, although they were well-aware of the fate of the case but for unknown reason, they did not produce the evidence. Court could not compel the petitioners to have produced their evidence rather it was their duty to have produced the same in order to substantiate their claim and when the Court realized that the petitioners were not interested in producing their evidence, then it was left with no option but to strike of their evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C.

5. This Court in a case reported as PLD 2004 Peshawar 168 Aftab Ahmad Khan and others v. Mst. Surayah Begum and 7 others has held that the petitioners/plaintiffs were not only negligent in producing their evidence but they did not care about the last chances provided and warnings given to them to proceed under Order XVII, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court, closing the evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs was unexception-able.

6. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality or material irregularity in the well-reasoned judgments/orders of two courts below, warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this revision petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed in limine. JJK/391/P Revision dismissed.