' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---A suit for pre-emption instituted by the respondents was dismissed by the trial court on 9-12-2002 (due to non-production of evidence) whereagainst appeal preferred by them was accepted by the learned District Judge, Jhang on 29-1-2005 and the suit was remanded for disposal in accordance with law. This is revision petition qua the same.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Whereas the prime contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that despite the number of adjournments granted to the respondents/ plaintiffs, they had failed to produce evidence and the learned trial Court was fully justified to close their right to produce the evidence and dismiss the suit; the learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs contends that on number of dates, the evidence was present but could not be recorded either due to the non-availability of the counsel for the parties or the non- availability of the Presiding Officer of the Court.
3. The original record was sent for which has been perused. It may be noticed that the suit was filed in the year 1995 in which the issues were framed on 20-12-1995. On number of dates, miscellaneous applications and matters were attended to by the trial Court. On some of the dates, the evidence was present and statements of some of the witnesses had been recorded. This was in the year 1998. Prior to the passing of the final order dated 9-12-2002, on three consecutive and successive dates i.e. 20-5-2002, 22-7-2002, 23-11-2002 and 26-11-2002, the respondents/plaintiffs failed to produce the evidence although they were warned and given the final and last opportunity for that purpose. On 26-11-2002 while adjourning the matter to 9-12-2002 it was expressly made clear to the respondents/plaintiffs that it will be the last opportunity for producing evidence and no excuse will be entertained for further adjournment. Despite that, on 9-12-2002 no evidence was produced nor any explanation or justification was brought forth for the non-production of evidence. The perusal of the order sheet makes it abundantly clear that despite enough and reasonable opportunity given to the respondents/plaintiffs, they did not avail the indulgence shown by the Court to them and took the proceedings casually and failed to even avail the last and final opportunity. It was clear misuse and abuse of process of the Court for which no indulgence could be shown to the respondents/plaintiffs, the learned appellate Court was, thus, not justified to show further latitude in the matter or to remand the suit to the trial Court. The learned appellate Court, thus, acted illegally and with material irregularity which judgment is unsustainable in law.
As a result, by accepting the revision petition, the judgment of the appellate Court is set aside and that of the learned trial Court is restored. No order as to costs.