' IMTIAZ RASHID SIDDIQUI, J.---Neither any official of the petitioner nor his counsel was present on 14- 7-2009, same is the case today. Accordingly this petition is being heard on merit in the absence of aforesaid.
2. The facts in brief are that petitioner-company is stated to be in possession, as a lessee of the respondent of room No,414, 4th floor Alfalah Building since, 1964. It was allegedly served with a notice to vacate the stated premises and thus it then filed a suit for permanent injunction against the same. The said suit was resisted, by the respondent herein; on the basis of pleadings of the parties requisite issues were framed and the case was set down for recording of evidence. As the petitioner failed to lead evidence despite numerous dates granted for the aforesaid purpose, his right to tender evidence was closed under Order XVII Rule, 3, C.P.C., vide order, dated 9-3-2006 passed by the learned trial Court. The said learned Court then proceeded to decide the case on merit and vide judgment and decree, dated 9-3-2006, the suit was dismissed.
3. The petitioner filed an appeal which was heard and decided by a learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. The learned appellate Court vide its judgment and decree, dated 8-5-2009 also dismissed the appeal.
4. Herein after having gone through the record and with the 'assistance of learned counsel for respondent, it is clear that petitioner despite lapse of five years, before the learned trial Court, did not tender evidence; a last And final opportunity was also not availed and it was thus that the evidence of petitioner was closed; the suit was decided on the basis of material available on record.
5. Upon perusal of impugned appellate order as well as annexed record, there does not appear to be any justification or reason on the basis of which interference could be made in the impugned order. In fact even the memo. Of revision does not provide any basis on account of which it could be held that learned lower Courts had acted with material irregularity or committed any jurisdictional error in deciding the case of petitioner. Indeed the impugned orders are perfectly in accordance with law.
6. There is hardly any merit in this civil revision; the same is dismissed accordingly.