2016G2515 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

Judgment/Order dated 26-09-2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit and judgment/ order dated 15-08-2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge Gilgit have been challenged through this petition. Through impugned order dated 15-08-2014, passed in Civil Suit No.100/2007, the learned judge first class Gilgit struck off the right of producing evidence by the petitioners/ defendants. On appeal (CFA No.99/2014), the learned first appellate court of Additional District Judge Gilgit upheld order dated 15-08-2014 of the learned Civil Judge.

2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the record. Ex-facie perusal of proceedings of the trial court is very helpful in coming to a correct conclusion of the case in hand. It is not disputed that the proceedings of the trial of the suit between the parties started on 12-05-2007. On 10-11-2008, respondent/plaintiff produced evidence and the trial proceedings of suit adjourned to 09-03-2009 for recording evidence of petitioners/defendants. Petitioners availed at least 19 adjournments for producing evidence but failed. In 4 adjournments out of the total 19 petitioners/defendants produced complete or incomplete DWs.

3. I have noted that the learned trial court, through his impugned order dated 15-08-2014, struck off the right of petitioners/defendants to produce evidence instead of adjourning the case on payment of costs to the respondent/plaintiff. The learned trial court has conducted the trial of the case very casually and carelessly, particularly regarding the recording of evidence of the petitioners/defendants. Perusal of order sheets of the learned trial court showing adjournments for recording evidence of petitioners/defendants shows a very painful aspect of the case. The learned trial court has mostly adjourned the case for evidence of petitioners/defendants without imposing any reasonable costs etc. and the same conduct of the learned trial court encouraged petitioners/ defendants for obtaining meaningless adjournments. Had the trial court objectively conducted the trial proceedings of trial of suit, particularly regarding the recording of evidence of petitioners/defendants, the position would have been quite different. In my opinion, the circumstances in which the petitioners/defendants did not produce evidence demanded imposing of heavy costs on them. The learned first appellate court also did not give full attention to the above mentioned omissions or mistakes of the learned trial court in connection with trial proceedings of the suit for recording the defense evidence. So both the learned first appellate court and the learned trial court have committed mistakes/omissions in conducting the case in hand which in my opinion are irregularities inviting interference of this court.

4. I, therefore, allow this petition, set aside impugned orders of the learned two courts below and remand the case back to the trial Court with direction to afford chance to the petitioners/defendants for producing evidence but subject to prior deposit of costs of Rs.15,000 (fifteen thousand), payable to the respondent/plaintiff. I further direct the trial Court for imposing heavy costs in case the petitioners/defendants sought any adjournment etc. for recording defense evidence. Petition allowed. File be consigned to record. HBT/90/GB Petition allowed.