' The petitioner, filed a suit for the specific performance against respondent No,3, with regard to the suit property i,e, the house, described in the plaint. Respondent No,4, also filed a similar suit against respondent No,3, claiming the enforcement of some agreement to sell by the said respondent in his favour. In both the suits, the petitioner and respondent No,4, were added as the defendants, the suits under the orders of the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura, were consolidated, issues were framed, and the parties were put to trial. The proceedings were recorded in'the suit of the petitioner; he examined two witnesses, when his evidence was closed on 6-11-2000, under Order XVII, rule 3 C.P.C., and this order, it is conceded by the learned counsel, is still intact. Thereafter, the petitioner, moved an application under section 151, C.P.C., that he along with his suit, has filed the original copy of the register of the scribe of the agreement to sell pertaining to respondent No,4, but the same has been removed from the file, therefore, the request was made that such copy may be directed to be recovered or in the alternative, the register of the scribe, be summoned. The application has been rejected by the learned Civil Judge, vide order dated 22-5-2004; the revision of the petitioner has also failed on 8-7-2004.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon the Order XVIII rule 3 C.P.C., has argued, that in fact the petitioner wants to produce the said document in rebuttal regarding the issues, the onus whereof had been placed upon the shoulders of respondent No,4. Therefore, the closure of the petitioner's evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 C.P.C., would not be a bar in his way.
4. Heard. The petitioner firstly has not shown, if the document mentioned above, being in his possession and power, was filed along with the suit, and mentioned in the form under Order XIII, Rule 1 C.P.C.; likewise, if it was relied upon; whether it was incorporated in the form under Order VII, rule 14, C.P.C. It is also not established, if within seven days of the framing of the issues, the list of witnesses, was filed to summon the scribe of the document along with his register. Moreover, even the copy of the issues, have not been filed along with this petition, to show, regarding which particular issue, the petitioner wants to produce the evidence in rebuttal. Learned counsel is also unable to answer, if the respondent No,4 has produced some evidence, and the said, document, is therefore, required to be produced in rebuttal. Above all, it may be held, that once the evidence of a party, is closed under the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., Order XVIII, Rule 3, C.P.C., would not be applicable. Because according to the said rule, where there arc several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning. May, at his option, either produce his complete evidence on those issues or reserve it right by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party. Here, the petitioner's evidence was closed under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., and obviously, the petitioner has neither reserved nor could reserve his evidence to be produced in rebuttal in terms of the above rule.
5. Even otherwise, this is not the case of the petitioner in his application under section 151 C.P.C., which is.Available on the record, that he wants to produce evidence under Order XVIII, Rule 3 C.P.C., it is simply stated therein that permission for producing or summoning the copy of the document, be passed. But, as mentioned earlier, after the closure of evidence of the petitioner under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., such permission could not have been granted on the rule that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The learned Trial Court, therefore, has rightly refused the application of the petitioner and the order has been upheld in revision. I do not find, that any case in the Constitutional jurisdiction has been made out for interference, when the orders impugned are not shown to have been passed without jurisdiction or lawfull authority. Dismissed.