1. ' RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, J.-Respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 being successors-in-interest of late Zafar Iqbal Zehri tiled a suit through their attorney for declaration, partition, possession and consequential relief against the petitioners and the official respondents in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge- I, Quetta in respect of their claimed heritable shares in the properties left by their predecessor-in- interest. The said attorney afterwards filed a miscellaneous application before the learned trial Court for withdrawal of the suit which was allowed by the above said learned Court, accordingly suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide order, dated 23-4-2005. Subsequent thereto on or about 2- 6-2005 the other constituted and appointed general attorney of the above said respondents/plaintiffs namely Mir Maqbool Ahmed Lehri filed application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
2. Seeking for recalling/setting aside the order, dated 23-4-2005 whereby the suit of the said respondents was dismissed as withdrawn on the grounds mentioned in the application including that the plaintiffs held faith in their previous attorney who was supposed to look after their interests, and; they being "Paikla Nasheen" ladies were absolutely not in a position to appear before the learned Court on each and' every date of hearing, but their said attorney by committing fraud and in breach of trust deprived them of their claim for due heritable shares in the property left by their predecessor-in-interest without their knowledge and notice; withdrew from the suit instead of looking after their interests and diligently prosecuting the suit.
3. ' This application was resisted by the petitioners by means of their rejoinder to the application. The learned Senior Civil Judge vide order, dated 15-2-2006 directed the respondents Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs in the suit to file list of their witnesses and adjourned the matter to 11-3-2006 for their evidence; on which date, the said learned Court dismissed the application filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. For non-prosecution on account of the failure of the applicants to produce evidence and for non-filing of the list of witnesses within seven days without any sufficient cause which was assailed by the said respondents by filing Civil Revision No,96 of 2006 before the learned High Court of Balochistan Quetta; allowed by the learned Single Judge in. Chambers vide order, dated 6-10-2006, accordingly the learned trial Court was directed to frame issues in the matter and then to provide reasonable opportunity to the parties for leading evidence by remanding the matter to the learned trial Court to be decided afresh in accordance with law, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners has been heard at some length.
4. Impugned judgment and the one passed by the learned trial Court on 11-3-2006 impugned in civil revision have been perused besides the order dated 234-2005 passed by learned trial Court whereby suit instituted by the respondents Nos.1 to 3 was dismissed as withdrawn. Perusal of the order dated 11-3-2006 referred to above shows that on the first date, of hearing fixed in the matter for production of evidence; the applicants/plaintiffs were non-suited on account of their failure to file list of their witnesses within seven days and non-production of evidence for which no sufficient cause as observed by the learned trial Court, was shown.
5. ' It is worthwhile to note that in the application tiled under section 12(2), C.P.C. Specific plea of fraud allegedly committed by the attorney of the plaintiffs was made which was denied and disputed by the petitioners who earlier had filed their written statement as well contesting the suit on various grounds of facts etc. Inasmuch as it was contended in the rejoinder to the application that the dispute between the parties was settled and thc attorney of the plaintiffs namely, Mir Mubashar Ibrahim without any fraud committed by him filed application for withdrawal of the suit and even till date of filing of the rejoinder, the attorney power of Mir Mubashar Ibrahim has been subsisting but with a view to extort money and blackmail the said respondents (now the petitioners) application was filed seeking for recalling of the order, dated 11-3-2006, thus; in our considered opinion the learned Single Judge in the High Court very appropriately in view of the respective pleadings or the parties concluded for disposal of the application after framing of the issues and then to provide reasonable opportunity to the parties to produce evidence. Viewed in this context the order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the application was appropriately interfered with by the learned Judge in the High Court as no evidence could have been even produced in absence of issues which in the given circumstances of the case essentially to have been framed and thus, the said order of the trial Court patently appeared to be oppressive. Moreover; even in absence of filing of list of witnesses and failure to produce evidence on the above said date; it was expected from the learned trial Court to have itself framed issues on the said date instead of non- suiting them and then to have directed the applicants/plaintiffs to produce evidence, which course admittedly being more nearer to equity, fair play and in accord with the relevant underlying principles of Order XIV, rule I read with Order XVI, rule 1, C.P.C. To have been followed but the learned trial Court as it appears from its order, dated 11-3-2006 without due application of mind to the pleadings of the parties likely to be adjudicated upon by the learned trial Court giving rise to the substantial questions of facts, dismissed the application of the plaintiffs outright for non- compliance of its order, dated 15-2-2006. Order impugned herein in the above stated 'circumstances of the case is unexceptionable. No infirmity, legal or factual in the impugned order could be pointed out by the learned. Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, this petition is dismissed. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.