' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---This judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions No,713 to 739 of 2000 (twenty-seven in number) as identical question of fact and law in involved in all these cases.
2. The petitioner/Government of Punjab had filed Writ Petitions Nos.10955 to 10981 of 1999 which were converted into revision petitions in the light of (Mst. Akhtar Nasimi v. Martial Law Administrator) (PLD 1982 Karachi 130).
3. Facts giving rise to the present revision petitions are to the effect that Muhammad Latif Butt, respondent No, 1/Government Contractor had filed 28 suits for the recovery of different amounts for the work done by him being the Government contractor. All these suits had been decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 21-1-1997 in his favour and he filed the execution petitions to satisfy the decretal amount. The petitioners had filed separate applications in all these suits under section 12(2)C.P.C. For setting aside the ex parte decree. These applications were contested by the respondent and from the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the issues and directed the parties to produce evidence. At this stage, an application for transfer of these petitions had been moved to the learned District Judge, who vide, order dated 12-10-1998 transferred all these cases to the Court of Syed Khurshid Anwar Rizvi, Civil Judge from the Court of Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah Civil Judge, Lahore. On receipt of these cases, the transferee Court on 24-10-1998 in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties adjourned the case for 17-11-1998. On 17-11-1998, memo. Entered appearance on behalf of the applicants and the petitions were dismissed in default and the case was adjourned to 30-11-1998 and on the said date, the Court had passed an order to freeze the Account No,27 of the judgment debtor/petitioners. The petitioners filed application for the restoration of their applications filed under 12(2) C.P.C. Which were dismissed in default and the learned trial Court vide order dated 9-12-1998 dismissed the applications for restoration. The said order was challenged by the petitioners through different appeals which were dismissed through order dated 12-3-1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.
4. Learned Law Officer has argued that there was sufficient cause for the restoration of the applications of the petitioners. The impugned orders had been passed by the Court below against the record. Further submitted that the transferee Court had not issued any notice to the petitioners for their appearance in the Court. Further added that after the transfer of the cases by the learned District Judge to the transferee Court, the date fixed for hearing was not in the knowledge of the petitioners as no such notice had been issued by the Court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has vehemently opposed the arguments addressed by the learned Law Officer, contending that the case was adjourned to 17-11- 1998 by the transferee Court for further proceedings in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties and that the absence from the Court by the petitioners was intentional.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Learned District Judge had passed the order for transfer of the cases on 12-10-1998 and on the said date, Muhammad Sadiq, SDO was also present before the said Court and the District Judge had 'directed the parties to appear before the transferee Court on 15-10-1998. In compliance thereto, the parties had appeared before the Court on 24-10-1998. The presence of the parties had been marked by the Court and the case was then adjourned in their absence on 17-11-1998. None on behalf of the petitioners had appeared despite repeated calls and the Court had dismissed the applications at late hours of the day i.e, at 3-00 p.m. Further no proof had been placed on the file of the Court that nobody was present before the District Judge when he had passed the order for the transfer of the cases on 12-10-1998. It was also the duty of the petitioners against whom the ex parte decree had been passed to pursue the case in the transferee Court.
8. The time was granted to the learned A.A.-G. To place on record the certified copies of the interim orders of the Court concerned but nothing has been placed before this Court uptil now. Originally, the writ petitions had been filed in this Court on 15-6-1999 and after the expiry of period of four years no documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioners in support of the assertion raised herein these petitions. The applications were dismissed by the Court after waiting the petitioners till 3-00 p.m. There is no proof of the fact that before the District Judge nobody was present from petitioners' side as well before transferee Court on 24-10-1998. This fact could be established by placing on record the copies of the order passed by the transferee Court and in view of lacking of such evidence no option is left for the Court but to infer that transfer of the 'cases was in the knowledge of the petitioners which were adjourned to 11-7-1998 in the presence of counsel for the parties.
9. Furthermore, there is concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners and this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction would not interfere within the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below unless it is established that the Courts had exercised the jurisdiction so vested in them, illegally or have failed to exercise the same legally. Reliance in this context can be made to the cases of Guldar Khan v. Isa Khan (1993 SCMR 2099), Nazir Ahmad v. Boota (1989 SCMR 450), Riaz v. Muhammad Saleem (1989 SCMR 1491) and Haji Muhammad. Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (1994 SC 291).
10. Learned Law Officer has miserable failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in impugned orders passed by the Courts below.
11. Resultantly, all these revision petitions being devoid of force are dismissed with no order as to costs.