' RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.---The petitioners, namely, Rehmat Ali, Barkat Ali, Sultan Ali, Barkat Bibi, Hassan Bibi, Muhammad Tufail, Nazeer Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad, Ghulam Muhammad, Shah Muhammad, Mst. Nazeeran and Mst. Bashiran, who are defendants in a civil suit filed by Tufail Muhammad (respondent No,3) by filing this constitutional petition have assailed the order, dated 4-7-2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh, whereby he had dismissed their revision petition filed against the rejection of their application for producing their evidence vide order, dated 12-2-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Precisely the facts giving rise to this petition are that land measuring 217 kanals, 17 marlas situate in Khata No,475/358 of Mauza Bharry Hog, Tehsil Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh had been allotted and confirmed in the name of Ali Muhammad son of Ranjha, who died issueless; initially, Tufail Muhammad son of Noor Din filed a declaratory suit on 28-5-1991 claiming himself to be the sole legal representative of said Ali Muhammad against the petitioners/defendants and two others, namely, Ali Muhammad son of Nizam-ud-Din and Haji Khuda Bakhsh son of Allah Wasaya and thereafter Ali Muhammad son of Nizam Din filed a suit for declaration on 18-10-1992 arraying the petitioners/defendants along with Tufail Muhammad son of Noor Din and Haji Khuda Baldish son of Allah Wasaya as party therein; after receipt of written statements of the respective defendants in both the suits, the trial Court proceeded to consolidate both the suits and framed as many as fifteen consolidated issues including that of relief; both the plaintiffs (respondents Nos. 3 and 4) and defendant No,7 (respondent No,5) led evidence in support of their respective claims; the petitioners moved an application under section 153, C.P.C. Asserting therein that they be allowed to record their evidence in the aforementioned consolidated suits, because evidence of defendants Not. 1 and 7 were recorded on 4-12-1995 and 10-12-1995, respectively', but they have not been given an opportunity of adducing their evidence in rebuttal of the plaintiff's evidence; the said application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge vide order, dated 12-2-2000 and the petitioner being aggrieved thereof preferred revision petition, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment, dated 4-7-2000. Hence, the instant petition.
3. Learned .Counsel for the petitioners contended that neither the trial Court had afforded any opportunity to the present petitioners for adducing their evidence nor any order with regard to closing of their evidence was passed, therefore, the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court declining the prayer of the petitioners are illegal, without any substance and thus are liable to be set aside; that the petitioners are legally entitled under Order XVIII, rule 2, C.P.C. To produce their evidence. He has placed reliance on the case of Mst. Sharifan Bibi and others v.
Asghar Ali and others (1991 CLC 1470).
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also gone through the record available on the file as well as the impugned orders passed by the Courts below.
5. It appears from perusal of the order of the trial Court that on 10-12-1995 after the evidence of the petitioners, the consolidated suits were fixed for rebuttal and the said order had not been challenged by either of the parties. It was observed by the trial Court that only Tufail Muhammad and Ali Muhammad are the contesting parties of the aforementioned suits, meaning thereby the petitioners are no more interested party to the suits. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge reveals that he after considering all aspects of the matter had observed that:- "the petitioners are admittedly successors-in-interest of Muhammad Bakhsh and Nabi Bakhsh, who had withdrawn their suits on 3-11-1984 as per Exh.D2. Learned trial Court should have struck off their names from the panel of defendants after this withdrawal. Despite this omission, they were practically no more parties to the suit. Therefore, the then learned trial Court rightly did not ask them to produce their evidence. They did not challenge the omission of learned trial Court for not asking them to produce their evidence before any forum. This was because they were also conscious of their practical non-existence as parties to those suits. Similar is the case with non- challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 25-3-1996 by Mr. Ghaffar Methab, the then learned Civil Judge, their non-appearance before the learned Appellate Court and non-challenge to findings, dated 27-9-1997 by the then learned Additional District Judge Kot Adu. Hence, the present learned trial Court has rightly refused to allow the present petitioners to produce their evidence . "
6. Perusal of the orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge as well as the learned trial Judge reveals that they have given elaborate and cogent reasons for rejecting the prayer made by the petitioners, The orders passed by the Courts below are legal and no jurisdictional error has been found therein. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has sought setting aside of the concurrent findings of the Courts below in a discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, which cannot be done unless any illegality or irregularity is pointed out therein. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out either any illegality much less any irregularity in the impugned orders, which are based on sound reasons and no interference is called for.
7. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not attract the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as in the said case, it was held that the Courts have sufficient powers to record evidence of any witness at any stage. Of suit when application for summoning of witnesses whose evidence was essential for just decision of the case, whereas in the present case it was concurrently held by both the Courts below that the evidence of the petitioners, who are pro forma parties, is not essential for the decision of the case.