1987 PLP 1930 (CLC)

‑‑‑

0. XVII, R. 3‑‑Declaratory suit‑‑Plaintiff given several opportunities to produce evidence but he failed to do so‑‑Evidence, therefore, closed and suit dismissed for his failure to establish his claim‑‑Contention that there was documentary evidence on record which had not been considered‑‑Held, the documents were not tendered in evidence and as such did‑not constitute evidence‑‑Trial Court therefore, was perfectly justified in proceeding against plaintiff under O.XVII, R. 3, C.P.C Aftab Iqbal Chaudhry for Petitioner. This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the petitioner, Atta Muhammad, against the respondents, Muhammad Wilayat and others, for a declaration to the effect that he was owner of certain land. His claim was denied by the respondents whereupon necessary issues were framed. Petitioner was allowed several opportunities to produce evidence but he did not do so. Last date fixed for his evidence was 27th April, 1983 when he was present alongwith his counsel but did not adduce any evidence. He also declined to appear as his own witness. His evidence was, therefore, closed, under Order XVII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the suit dismissed for his failure to establish his claim. He went in appeal before an Additional District Judge but in vain. Hence this civil revision.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was documentary evidence on the record but the same was not considered by the learned trial Court while dismissing the suit and, therefore, judgment and decree passed by it were not sustainable.

3. Documentary evidence referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the copy of register Haqdaran for the year 1945‑46 and copy of register Haqdaran for the year 1977‑

78. The said copies have also been filed alongwith this revision petition. Admittedly, the said copies were not tendered in evidence and were, therefore, not exhibited. This means that they did not constitute evidence in the case and as such could not be taken into account for deciding the suit on merits. Even if they had been taken into consideration, they would not have advanced the petitioner's case because in the said copies he is not recorded as owner of the land in dispute. When learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with this aspect of the matter, it was submitted by him that the petitioner had become owner of the disputed land due to his being mortgagee thereof for more than 60 years. In the said copies he has not been recorded as mortgagee either. There is no mention of his name in the copy of register Haqdaran for the year 1945‑

46. In copy of register Haqdaran for the year 1977‑78 his name appears as a tenant‑at‑will and not as mortgagee. In the circumstances, even if the said documents ale taken into consideration, the petitioner's suit would not meet with success.

4. Judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge would reveal that as many as ten opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to produce evidence but he failed to do so. On the last date fixed for his evidence i.e. the 27th April, 1983 also he did not lead any evidence. He was present in person but refused to appear as his own witness. Learned Civil Judge was, therefore, perfectly justified in proceeding against him under Order XVII, rule 3 of the Code Civil Procedure.

5. There is no merit in this revision. It is dismissed in limine. K.B.A./A‑138/L Petition dismissed in limine.