PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J. --- Through this civil revision petition, the petitioner calls in question judgment and decrees passed by learned Additional District Judge, Vehari dated 6.7.2004 'and dated 5.11.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge, Vehari.
2. Muhammad Aslam, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a declaratory suit alleging therein that he obtained pesticides on credit loan from respondent No. 3 in the year 1988 and had discharged his entire liabilities, however, the respondents/defendants Nos. 2 and 3 by committing fraud illegally and unlawfully have shown the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner as defaulter, who had died three years prior to the institution of the suit and that through coercive measures are bent upon to recover the said amount from the petitioners suit was resisted by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by filing written statement, whereas the remaining respondents were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 30.5.2002. After framing of issues the parties were directed to produce their evidence. Despite number of opportunities have been given the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to produce their evidence, therefore, while invoking provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C.
Learned Trial Court proceeded to close the evidence of the plaintiffs. Consequently the suit filed by them was dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 5.11.2003 where-against an appeal was preferred which too was dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 8.7.2004.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without providing adequate opportunity to produce evidence the petitioner/plaintiffs were non-suited by the learned Trial Court; that the impugned judgments and decrees have been passed arbitrarily and without applying judicious mind; that if at all the predecessor-in-interest owned any liability tOwards the defendants, still the petitioners cannot be made liable to pay, the same and' the defendant financial institution cannot take coercive measures.
4. I have heard, learned counsel for the petitioner .At quite some lenigth and with his able assistance have also minutely gone through the record.
5. I find that as many as 1Q opportunities were given to the petitioners to produce their evidence which they failed, to. Avail. No illegality or material irregularity worth mentioning has even been.Pointed out. I may observe here that if a party to a suit fails to abide by the orders' of the Court, the law in that eventuality empowers the Court, in the case of the plaintiffs to dismiss the suit and in case of defendant to proceed against him exparte. The powers of the learned Trial. Court are not in-dispute which in the case in hand to my mind have rightly been exercised by him and thereafter by upholding the same, the learned Appellate Court did not commit any illegality. The petition, therefore, being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed-in limine.
Civilrevision .