MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---Through this constitutional petition prayer for direction to respondent No.1 for the accelerated hearing of suit titled as "Muhammad Arshad v. Maqbool Ahmad etc." has been made.
2. I am afraid such a constitutional petition is maintainable, however, at the same time the perusal of the proceedings of the trial Court reveal that the learned trial Court is not being allowed by the leaned counsel for the parties to proceed with the suit; for example the issues were framed on 27- 9-2003, the suit was listed for petitioner's evidence on 29-11-2003 and thereafter it is being adjourned due to non-cooperation of learned counsel for the respondent. The proceedings of the trial Court further reveal that on 6-3-2004 examination-in-chief of one witness of the petitioner was recorded but he was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent for want of preparation and the cross-examination of the said witness had to be adjourned to 8-4-2004 on payment of Rs.1,000 as cost. On 8-4-2004. Mr. Muhammad Najeeb Ullah Jatoi, Advocate submitted his power of attorney on behalf of the respondent and an application was also moved praying for the recall of order, dated 6-3-2004, regarding imposition of cost. The said application was, however, dismissed on the same day and at the request of learned counsel for the respondent it was adjourned to 6-5-2004. On 6-5-2004 the learned trial Court was on leave and the suit was adjourned to 12-5-2004 and on the said date suit was again adjourned to 5-6-2004. On 5-6-2004 another application being under Order XIII, rule 3 read with section 151, C.P.C. Was moved by the respondent and instead of recording evidence the learned trial Court adjourned the suit for the decision of the said application which was resultantly dismissed on 2-9-2004 and the suit was adjourned to 6-10-2004. On 6-10-2004 the suit was again adjourned to 16-10-2004 due to non- availability of learned counsel for the respondent. On 16-10-2004 it was again adjourned to 8-12- 2004 as the learned counsel for the respondent again did not turn up. On 8-12-2004 learned counsel for the respondent sought adjournment due to his personal reasons and the case was adjourned to 9-12-2004, on which date, again a power of attorney on behalf of Mr. Mumtaz Mustafa, Advocate was submitted through his junior which is not only unusual but also deplorable and the suit was got adjourned on the ground, that Mr. Mumtaz Mustafa, Advocate was busy in contesting Punjab Bar Council Election. This necessitated the adjournment of case for three months and the next date of hearing was fixed on 15-3-2005. In the meanwhile as the learned trial Court was transferred and the suit was also transferred to some new Court, hence evidence on 15-3- 2005 was also not recorded by the learned trial Court.
4. The above mentioned resume of the, proceedings of the trial Court depicts a dismal state of affairs and uncalled for attitude of respondent/defendant who for one reason or the other did not allow the trial Court to proceed with the suit. The manner in which the suit is being conducted by the learned trial Court allowing new counsel on every date to appear is highly uncalled for specifically on 9-12-2004 the learned trial Court allowed the junior of a counsel to produce power of attorney on behalf of Mr. Mumtaz Mustafa, Advocate and the case was got adjourned for three months on the excuse that the learned counsel was contesting election. If the learned counsel Mr. Mumtaz Mustafa, Advocate was busy in contesting the election he should not have filed the power of attorney nor the Court should have allowed adjournment just for the pleasure of learned counsel who was a prospective candidate for the Punjab Bar Council Election.
5. Keeping in view the above mentioned circumstances and while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 203 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 I would direct Additional Registrar of this Bench to place this matter before the learned Inspection Judge, Rahimyar Khan for his perusal and issuance of necessary direction on administrative side.
However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the case uninterrupted by any sort of request made either by the learned counsel or by the party and ensure that the evidence of the petitioner is recorded within a minimum period of time.
6. With this observation this petition is disposed of.
7. Office to remit this order to Mr. Sajjad Hussain Khan, Civil Judge 1st Class, Rahimyar Khan.