PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J. The petitioner's suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Multan vide judgment and decree'dated 28.3.2008, where against an appeal was preferred which too was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated '25.4.2008 passed by learned Additional 'District Judge, Multan, which are assailed through this revision petition.
2. It is inter alia contended that the learned Civil Judge, Multan proceeded to pass an ex parte order un-justifiably and the sufficient opportunity to defend was not allowed to the petitioners.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at quite some length and with his able assistance have minutely examined the record.
4. I find that the Suit Was adjourned from 20.2.2008 and 27.2.2008 on which date the petitioners did not produce their evidence. Again it was adjourned for 28.3,2008 when none appeared on behalf of the petitioners nor evidence was present. The learned Civil Court, therefore, had no option but to proceed under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. A Question arises that as to how many opportunities are to be given to a party for fulfilling his obligations i.e. For producing evidence or conducting cross examination filing written statement etc. Answer to the same is that under the law the opportunity has to be, fair and reasonable and to my mind even one or two opportunities could be sufficient.
The essential ingredients for taking . Proceedings against a party under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. Are that the date of hearing must be in the knowledge of the party and time given for doing certain act must be sufficient and if adjournment is sought by a party then there has to be a plausible explanation for each adjournment and it would not be illegal either for the learned Court to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff or proceed against respondents ex parte, as the case may be if the Court reaches a just conclusion that the concerned party is hampering with the proceedings, therefore, in the case in hand, arguments of the learned counsel that fair opportunities were not given is untenable and not borne out of the record. I am of the considered view that the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are well-reasoned, in accordance with law on the subject thus calls for no interference and are up-held. Resultantly this petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.