' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The appellant/plaintiff impugns the judgment and decree dated 20-9- 1995, whereby a suit filed by him under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. For recovery of Rs,33,000 has been dismissed. The learned trial Court has invoked the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. To foreclose the right of the appellant to lead evidence and as a consequence, the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed for want of evidence.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the order sheet. From the same, it is clear that although issues were framed on 14-5-1994 and the ease was repeatedly adjourned for the evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not at fault. Either the presiding officer was absent on the dates fixed or the lawyers were on strike or on two occasions request for adjournment was made by learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.
3. On 27-6-1995, which was the date prior to the dismissal of the suit, the Bar had declared a strike due to the imposition of the excise duty. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant contends there was no occasion to invoke the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. And to foreclose the appellant's right to lead evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent was not in a position to controvert the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the circumstances discussed above, I am not in any doubt that the learned trial Court was not justified in invoking the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C., and as a consequence, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff.
5. In the foregoing circumstances, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 20-9- 1995 are set aside. Since both parties are represented, they are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif on 20-7-2004. On that date, the learned District Judge may either proceed in the matter himself or entrust the case to a learned Additional District Judge for decision afresh.