' By judgment dated 19-5-2003, the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad has remanded the matter to the learned Rent Controller by setting aside his order dated 15-12-2001, which judgment has been assailed through this second appeal.
2. Stating the background of the litigation which commenced with the filing of an ejectment petition in the year 1983, the learned counsel contends that the respondent, who had been afforded numerous opportunities by the Rent Controller was not entitled to any further indulgence as has been shown by the Appellate Court by remanding the matter once again to the Rent Controller. The learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the impugned judgment contends that since there was no specific order passed as to the last opportunity for producing evidence nor the adjournment had been granted to the respondent on his request, the provisions of Rule 3 of Order XVII, C.P.C. Could not be applied. He has referred to Qutab-ud-Din v. Gulzar and 2 others PLD 1991 SC 1109 in this context. It is further contended that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant by the remand order passed by the learned Additional District Judge.
3. The chequered background of the case i.e. Ejectment matter which unfortunately has remained pending for such a long time need not be reiterated except to briefly state that the ejectment proceedings concluded in the year 1991 with the dismissal of S.A.O. No.39 of 1991 on 25-6-1991, were sought to be revived on an application filed under section 13(4) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, read with sections 47, 141 and 151, C.P.C., which was filed in the year 1994. The same was contested by filing reply and issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller. Since the respondent failed to produce evidence on number of dates (as per statement of the learned counsel for the appellant 16 opportunities had been given), the learned Rent Controller closed the evidence on 12-4-1997 and the application was dismissed. On the appeal preferred by the respondent the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad remanded the matter to the Rent Controller with the direction to the trial Court to allow "an opportunity" to the respondent to produce evidence. This was vide judgment dated 20-1-2000. The case was thereafter adjourned by the Rent Controller on number of dates in order to enable the respondent to produce his evidence and eventually his right to produce the same was again closed on 15-12-2001 and petition was dismissed accordingly. In this context, it is to be seen whether the learned Rent Controller was justified to pass such an order. The perusal of the order-sheet shows the indulgence shown to the respondent for the production of his evidence.
On 23-6-2001, in view of the non-presence of his evidence, he was given last opportunity to produce the evidence and case was adjourned to 8-9-2001. On the adjourned date i.e. 8-9-2001, again the evidence was not produced but further opportunity was given subject to payment of costs of Rs.100. On the adjourned date i.e. 13-10-2001, again the evidence was not produced and the case was adjourned to 27-11-2001. On 27-11-2001, the case was adjourned to 15-12-2001 due to the Court timing being over. It was on 15-12-2001 that the order was passed by the learned Rent Controller. Though on 27-11-2001, no specific order was passed for production of evidence, on the adjourned date i.e. 15-12-2001, yet the respondent who was represented through the learned counsel was fully aware of the proceedings for which the case had been coming up before the Rent Controller and the adjournments were granted to him. He is merely banking upon hyper- technicalities that the date of 15-12-2001 had not been specifically fixed for production of the evidence. Suffice it to observe that the provisions of C.P.C. Are not stricto senso applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Controller as under the Ordinance, the Rent Controller acts as a persona designata. He was fully justified to pass order, dated 15-12-2001 in exercise of his discretion which cannot be regarded either arbitrary or whimsical. Large many adjournments had been granted and indulgence shown for the production of evidence. The learned Appellate Court was thus, not justified to interfere with such an order of the Rent Controller by ordering another remand.
The judgment of the Appellate Court is not sustainable in law and is set aside.
' As a result of the above, this appeal is accepted with no order as to costs.