KH. FAROOQ SAEED, J. --- Brief facts leading to the present writ petition are that the petitioner filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, against the respondent No. 1, in respect of property situated at Chak No. 207/R.B., Abdullahpur, Faisalabad. The said property was rented out by the mother of the petitioner to the respondent for a period of 15 years from October, 1957 to September, 1973. The said lady died in 1973 and the petitioner being her legal heir has sought ejectment of the respondent claiming personal need as well as for other reasons.
2. Learned Rent Controller on the basis of the petition and after preliminary discussion framed various issues. However, later when the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner, he failed to avail various opportunities provided to him. He was given more than 7 chances starting from .13.12.2006 to 3.7.2007. The learned Rent Controller, therefore, passed an order through which his evidence was closed under Order XVII, Rule 3 of C.P.C. The appeal of the petitioner against the said order too has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 18.3.2008.
3. Before this Court the petitioner has claimed that he is employed in Pakistan 'Railways and his job is covered within the essential services being a Civil Engineer (Signals). He, therefore, could not produce the evidence in the Court of law. The prayer has been made for granting him one more chance for doing the same.
4. In support of the claim the petitioner had filed an affidavit, but he was asked to submit a certificate from the Chief Engineer (Signal) Pakistan Railways, which he has statedly now submitted.
5. Notwithstanding the fact that at this stage of the proceedings especially under a writ jurisdiction such an evidence cannot be entertained, even otherwise, the same does not in un-equivocal terms hold the job to be as an essential service. The petitioner's attitude has remained evasive during the entire proceedings and obviously no credence can be given to him for his negligence and for not bringing his evidence before the Court of law.
6. The respondent counsel argued the case from the angle of the merit also. However, the same being not subject-matter of the writ petition for the time being are ignored. Even otherwise, this Court would readily agree with the respondent that the entertainment of a writ jurisdiction there are certain parameters which have not been pointed out in the orders of the two Courts below. One needs to prove some mala fide or some jurisdictional error or illegality in the judgments of the said Courts below.
7. Since it is not the case of the petitioner at all that there is any such illegality in the orders, the writ jurisdiction obviously cannot be entertained, hence, is dismissed. .