' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration claiming to be owner in possession of property detailed in the head note of the plaint on the basis of being a legal heir of deceased Mst. Sardaran. An other case was also filed by one Allah Dad respondent that he is legal heir of said Mst. Sardaran. Both the suits were consolidated and proceedings were carried on in the suit filed by present petitioner. Consolidated issues were framed by learned trial Court on 21-2-2004 and petitioner was called upon to lead his evidence.
From the date of framing of issues till the last date i,e, 23-11-2006 when by application of provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Right of petitioner for leading evidence was closed, total 38 dates were fixed. On majority of the said dates case had to be adjourned on the request of petitioner for producing his evidence. At least on three previous dates i,e, 3-7-2006, 27-7-2006 and 3-10-2006 adjournments were granted on the request of petition for producing his evidence with cost and also with warning but despite that petitioner failed to produce his evidence and ultimately his suit was also dismissed on 23-11-2006. It was assailed by the petitioner through an appeal, which also stands dismissed on 31-5-2007. Both these judgments and decrees are being assailed through the instant civil revision.
2. It is contended that on 23-11-2006 petitioner was hospitalized on account of a road accident, therefore, could not manage to get in touch with his learned counsel. It is further submitted that on the preceding date i,e, 3-10-2006 request was not made on behalf of the present petitioner, therefore, penal action should not have been taken on the next date of hearing.
3. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. Has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. I have considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
5. Ground being urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had met a road accident, is not in line with Para 6 of the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner before learned lower court, in which it is submitted that he was sick and was hospitalized. No mention of any accident is on record. Apart from this, it took almost three years and 38 adjournments and numerous on the request of the petitioner and particularly last three with cost and warning, petitioner did not care to adduce his evidence, therefore, for reasons stated above, no ground for interference is made out.
This petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.