' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Imtiaz Ahmad, petitioner through this Civil Revision under section 115, C.P.C. Has assailed the judgment and decree dated 28-9-2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Layyah, and the judgment and decree dated 27-1-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Layyah. Through the former judgment and decree the learned Civil Judge closed the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. And dismissed the suit of the petitioner for possession of the land for non-production of evidence. Through the latter judgment and decree the appeal of the petitioner filed against the said judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant civil revision are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession against Ghulam Muhammad and others, wherein the present respondents, namely Muhammad Bakhsh, Naseem Haider Khan and Abdul Rasheed Khan were arrayed as defendants Nos.5 to 7, regarding the land measuring 1-Kanal, 2 Marlas, contending therein that the petitioner- plaintiff besides being an owner of the land measuring 58 Kanals, 3 Marlas was owner of the land in dispute and the defendants-respondents have no concern with it and that they were bent upon to raise construction over it and would transfer the same to some other person.
' The suit was contested and the defendants Nos.1 and 2 by filing a joint written statement; the remaining defendants filed separate written statement controverting the averments of the plaint and also took certain preliminary objections. During the pendency of the suit, defendants Nos.1 to 4 handed over possession of 9-Marlas of the disputed land to the petitioner-plaintiff so the petitioner moved an application to the trial Court on 19-4-2005 for deletion of their names from the array of the defendants.
3. The learned trial Court out of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as ten issues including the issue of relief and the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 21-6-2004; the petitioner did not produce evidence on the said date and also on subsequent dates and the case continued to be adjourned by providing opportunities to him for production of evidence, and lastly the petitioner was provided an opportunity to produce evidence on 28-9-2006 on payment of costs of Rs,500. On 28-9-2006, evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff, according to his averment, was present but his counsel was not available and application for grant of adjournment was made, which request was turned down and evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner was closed under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C, the suit was decided and dismissed for non-production of evidence. Against the said judgment and decree the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide the judgment and decree dated 27-2-2010, hence this civil revision.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the file. The impugned order/judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge reveals that on 20-9-2006 last opportunity was granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to produce evidence on 28-9-2006 on payment of costs of Rs,500, and despite it being the last chance the plaintiff-petitioner could not produce evidence, rather a request for adjournment was made on the ground that because the learned counsel was with fast so he had left home, therefore, the learned Civil Judge invoking the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. Closed the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff was granted almost ten opportunities to produce evidence, but he failed to produce his evidence despite affording so many opportunities, therefore, the learned trial Court had no option except to close the evidence and dismiss the suit, which has rightly been done so. The appeal of the petitioner has also rightly been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge with a well- reasoned judgment and decree. The cited precedent cases reported as Ghulam Rasool v. Rai Ghulam Mustafa and others 1993 SCM R 2026 and Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, C and W and others v. Messrs Tahir Shoaib Rashid Shoaib 1998 CLC 1680-Peshawar do not support the case of the petitioner as facts in the said case were different.
5. There are concurrent findings of the two Courts below. The judgments and decrees of both the lower Courts are quite rational and just. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in both the said orders calling for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Further no misreading of any record has been pointed out. In the result, this revision petition being meritless is dismissed in limine.