2010 PLP 1905 (YLR)

SAHIB KHAN, J.

This revision petition calls in question the validity of impugned order dated 24-11-2008 passed by the District Judge Gilgit, whereby he dismissed the appeal of appellants, filed against the order dated 30-9-2008 passed by the trial Judge.

2. The learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that both the lower Courts have debarred the petitioners/defendants from production of evidence. He seeks a chance to the petitioners/defendants to produce their evidence as the case may be decided on merits. On the other hand learned counsel for opposite side, vehemently opposed the contention made by Assistant Advocate General, with the plea that the petitioners/defendants have already availed special opportunity granted by District Judge Gilgit for adducting their evidence vide order dated 3-7-2000.

3. No doubt the petitioners/defendants were allowed a special chance subject to payment of cost Rs.4,000, but have failed to produce their evidence for a considerable time starting from 3-7-2000 till 30-9-2008. The time consumed by the petitioners after getting chance is about 8 years, but could not avail the opportunity provided to them secondly through above quoted order of the District Judge.

4. The law and equity always favour decision on merits, for the purpose each and every party is granted suitable time, enabling them to produce their respective evidence. The term sufficient time as has been provided in law, never can be stretched in favour of any particular party for unending period. The true sense and wisdom of legislature behind the provision is to provide opportunity to the parties for production of their evidence within a reasonable time for fair conclusion of the matter. The certain penal Clauses provided in the Code of Civil Procedure are neither meant to show of power nor having less weight, but equally enforceable at the moment when the situation so demand, like the other provisions of the Code. Likewise Order XVII rule 3 not being a foreign provision of the Code, is applicable whenever the situation so exist. Particularly when the party is ignorant, and causing delay as in this case.

5. According to the facts disclosed from record, reveal that the petitioners had not availed the opportunity granted by the trial Court and even, after the order passed by the District Judge on 3-7-2000 and till 30-9-2008. The request of the learned Assistant Advocate General for providing a further single opportunity by this Court, will amount to force a party not willing to act and furthermore, it shall cause serious injustice and over burden the opposite party for no fault on his/their part.

6. The order dated 3-7-2000 passed by District Judge has gained finality wherein it has been held the opportunity provided will be the last and final. This order has not been challenged before any competent forum in spite of the fact that the petitioners were government servants, serving under a governmental organization fully equipped with all means and resources. In the circumstances, the discretionary power vested with the Court requires its equitable exercise, which in this case never favours to the petitioners as compare to the respondents.

7. Losing and availing of opportunities provided under law always play vital role in the fate of litigation in this case, petitioners have lost their golden opportunity not once, but twice, hence they are not entitled for any special treatment and concession. Both the courts below were very right while holding the impugned judgments/order dated 24-11-2008 and 30-9-2008 respectively. Thus upheld.

8. Revision Petition being devoid of law is hereby dismissed. File. H.B.T./50/Glt.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.