' MAUVLI ANWARUL HAQ, J. On 16-7-1997 the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner. In the plaint, it was stated that the respondent is the owner of the land mentioned in para.1 of the plaint.
The petitioner approached him with the representation that he is an employee of the Pakistan Navy who intends to purchase the said land for a Housing Scheme but he refused to sell the land.
However, later by coercion and mis-representation his signatures and thumb impressions were obtained on some documents and ultimately a general power of attorney was fabricated on 16-10- 1996 which was registered on 21-10-1996 and on the basis thereof a sale deed was executed and got registered on 22-10-1996 qua the suit land. A declaration was accordingly sought. The petitioner in his written statement pleaded a valid sale in his favour. Issues were framed.. The case was being adjourned for recording of evidence when on 6-7-2004 it was noted that the case has been received by transfer. A last opportunity was given to the respondent for evidence on 13-7- 2004. On this date, it was noted that none was present for the petitioner despite calls and consequently the evidence was closed and the suit was dismissed. A first appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed by a learned ADJ, Sialkot, on 30-9-2005 who has remanded back the case to the learned trial Court for decision after recording evidence.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the respondent had failed to produce the evidence despite several opportunities, the learned trial Court had lawfully dismissed the suit and the learned ADJ has acted without jurisdiction while passing the impugned remand order.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. I find that the suit filed by the respondent was consolidated with another suit filed against him by the petitioner on 19-11-2003 and issues were framed. I may note here that out of eight issues framed apart from relief onus of only one issue was upon the respondent i.e, issue No,5. The case was adjourned to 8-1-2004 when it was noted that the evidence is absent and the case was adjourned to 10-1-2004. On this date again evidence was absent and the case was adjourned to 24-1-2004. A last opportunity was given for 26-2-2004. The relevant order sheet is not present so as to ascertain as to what happened on the said date. Be that as it may, the order, dated 19-6-2004 records that the Presiding Officer has been transferred while I have already reproduced above the order, dated 6-7-2004. On 13-7-2004 after recording the respondent absent the learned trial Court separated the suit filed by him from the consolidated suit and proceeded to close evidence and to dismiss the suit. To my mind, the learned ADJ has very correctly interfered in the matter on more than one grounds. In the first instance, Order XVII Rule 3, C.P.C. Is not at all applicable as the respondent had been marked absent while, in the second, even if it be assumed that Order XVII Rule 3, C.P.C. Was applicable then the learned trial Court was required to pronounce a judgment. The learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit after closing the evidence without pronouncing a ,judgment. Not a single issue was decided. I, therefore, do not find any grounds being made out to interfere with the impugned order of remand within the meaning of section 115, C.P.C. The civil revision is dismissed in limine.