'HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner/WASA through its Managing Director has assailed two orders passed by two courts below, first order passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Multan dated 25-5-2009 by which learned Judge had closed the evidence of the defendant/petitioner under Order XVII, Rule 3 C.P.C. As allegedly petitioner defendant failed to produce his evidence although many opportunities were awarded to him to produce the same before the learned trial Court. Second order dated 9-9-2009 which is sought to be set aside is passed by learned Additional District Judge, Multan, by which order revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, filed against order dated 25-5-2009 by the learned trial Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff respondent Syed Abdul Razzaq Gillani son of Syed Rehmat Ali is the owner of house No,5 Block-W, New Multan, who is consumer of WASA. Plaintiff filed a declaratory suit qua WASA etc. The petitioner here writ petitioner challenged the vires of bill by means of which tariff from domestic to commercial had been changed and the impugned bill on A the basis of commercial tariff was issued. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that the defendant petitioner issued a bill for commercial tariff without any justification. WASA authority has changed the tariff from domestic to commercial. Defendant threatened the plaintiff to pay the bill under the commercial tariff. Otherwise his connection will be disconnected. In these circumstances the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction. Conversely, the defendants petitioners filed their written statement controverted the assertions of the plaint and asserted that Tulip Beauty Parlor was being run in the B house owned by the plaintiff/respondent, as such, it was commercial, therefore, tariff had rightly been changed from domestic to commercial.
3. Out of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the bill A/C No, 016/ 00003850 of house No,5, W Block, New Multan regarding the plaintiff to pay previous bill and subsequent bills at commercial rates is illegal? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
(4) Whether the civil courts Multan lacks jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD
(5) Whether the Tulip Beauty Parlor is being run on the residential plot, owned by the plaintiff? OPD
(6) Relief.
4. Plaintiff/respondent led his oral as well as documentary evidence on 13-12-2005. On 13-12-2005 oral evidence of the plaintiff was completed and case was adjourned to 23-12-2005 for documentary evidence which was completed on 25-1-2006. On 28-1-2006 first time the case was adjourned to 18-2-2006 for evidence of the defendant. On the said date, defendant did not produce his evidence and case was adjourned for 22-3-2006. On this date, Presiding Officer was on leave and case was adjourned for 19-4-2006 for further proceedings. On said date, case was transferred from one Court of Civil Judge and entrusted to another Court of Civil Judge, Multan on administration side. On 19-4-2006, the case was adjourned to 27-5-2006, Presiding Officer was on leave and case was adjourned to 3-7-2006. On said date, Presiding Officer was on leave and case was adjourned for evidence of the defendant on 21-9-2006 and on this date, Presiding Officer was on leave and case was adjourned for 13-11-2006. On said date evidence was not available and case was adjourned to 18-1-2007. On said date, evidence of the defendant was not available and case was adjourned to 9-2-2007. On said date, case was again adjourned to 6-4-2007 due to non-availability of the evidence of the defendant. On 6-4-2007, Presiding Officer was on leave and case was adjourned for more proceedings for 12-5-2007. On said date, case was adjourned for evidence of the defendant for 21-6-2007.
5. It is astonishing and surprising which reveals the inefficiency of learned Presiding Officer, who passed order on 21-6-2007 fixed the case for plaintiff's evidence for 14-7-2006, again on said date, case was adjourned many times and was fixed for plaintiff's evidence on 23-11-2007, 21-11-2008, 11- 4-2008, 27-6-2008 respectively. These six dates were mistakenly fixed for evidence of the plaintiff which was already completed. On 27-6-2008, Presiding Officer recorded in his order that evidence of the plaintiff has been recorded earlier and case was adjourned for evidence of the defendant for 27-9-2008. On said date, evidence was not present; the case was adjourned to 16-10-2008. On 16- 10-2008, case was adjourned to 29-10-2008 for evidence of the defendant. During 27-9-2008 and 29-10-2008 case was taken up on 18-10-2008 also on which date learned Presiding Officer was on leave and case was adjourned to 29-10-2008. On said date, Presiding Officer was on leave and case was adjourned to 14-11-2008 again on said date Presiding Officer was on leave and case was adjourned to 19-12-2008. On 19-12-2008, evidence was not produced by the defendant and last opportunity was given to defendant for producing his evidence for 10-3-2009. On 10-3-2009 it was the holiday and case was taken upon on 11-3-2009. In the Order dated 11-3-2009 learned Civil Judge recorded in the order that on 10-3-2009 there was holiday and evidence of defendant was not present and final last opportunity is given to defendant to produce his evidence on 25-5-2009.
On 25-5-2009 Presiding Officer passed the following order:-- "Today, the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant but defendant has failed to produce the evidence in spite of last opportunity, hence, the right of the defendant for production of evidence is hereby closed."
6. Petitioner defendant filed revision petition before the learned District Judge, Multan assailing order dated 25-5-2009 by which right of producing of evidence of C defendant was closed.
Learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 9-9-2009 dismissed the civil revision.
7. In this writ petition petitioner has assailed both the orders dated 9-9-2009 passed by Additional District Judge and order dated 25-5-2009 passed by Civil Judge, Multan.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ WASA contends that on 19-12-2008 last opportunity was given to defendant petitioner for producing his evidence although on his request, mistakenly next date was given as 10-3-2009 which was holiday and the file of the case was taken up on 11-3-2009. On 11-3-2009 learned trial Court adjourned the case for evidence of the defendant on 25-5-2009. On 25-5-2009 evidence of the defendant petitioner was not available and the D learned trial Court closed the right of producing the evidence of the defendant under Order XVII Rule 3, C.P.C; further contends that on 11-3-2009 case was adjourned in routine to 25-5-2009 for the evidence of the defendant/petitioner. Learned trial Court wrongly closed the evidence of the defendant; he contends that in the interest of justice one opportunity should be given to the defendant petitioner for producing his evidence in support of his case.
9. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent contends that there are concurrent findings against the petitioner defendant; there is no jurisdictional error in both the orders; in writ jurisdiction this Court cannot disturb the concurrent findings unless jurisdictional defect is found in the impugned orders; that many opportunities were awarded to the defendant petitioner for producing his evidence but he badly failed to produce his evidence; although small point is involved that whether WASA should charge the domestic tariff or commercial tariff from the respondent plaintiff; learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on 19-12-2008 case was adjourned for 10-3-2009, on that date there was holiday and case was taken up on 11-3-2009, on the said date, evidence of the defendant was not available and case was adjourned to 25-5-2009 on the request of the petitioner. Learned trial Court has recorded in its order dated 11-3-2009 final last opportunity was awarded to the defendant petitioner for producing his evidence. Learned Civil Judge rightly closed the right of producing the evidence of the defendant petitioner under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C.; further contended that learned Additional District Judge, Multan rightly upheld the order dated 25-5-2009 in dismissing the civil revision of the petitioner.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. Order sheet of proceedings of trial Court reveals that petitioner defendant was awarded many opportunities prior to 27-9-2008 on many previous dates i.e, 11-4-2008, 23-11-2008, 27-9-2007 defendant petitioner failed to produce his evidence; earlier on dates 18-2-2006 to 12-5-2007 near- about on ten dates the petitioner failed to produce his evidence. On 28-1-2006 first time case was adjourned to 18-2-2006 for recording of the evidence of the defendant petitioner. On 27-6-2008 learned Presiding Officer adjourned the case for evidence of the defendant petitioner. On 27-9- 2008, 16-10-2008, 29-10-2008, 19-10-2008, 18-10-2008, 14-11-2008 and 19-11-2008 out of these eight dates on three dates only learned Presiding Officer was on leave, on five dates the evidence of the defendant was not present, the record of the case of trial Court clearly establish many opportunities were already given to the petitioner defendant for producing his evidence and last final opportunity was given to the present, petitioner defendant on 11-3-2009 to produce his evidence on 25-5-2009 but the defendant petitioner badly failed which shows utter lack of interest of the petitioner and it appears that the petitioner defendant wants to prolong the matter although the dispute is of very trivial nature. The case presented by the defendant petitioner reported as Province of Punjab v. Mst. Zenat Shaheen &PLD 1990 Lah. 180) does not advance the case of the petitioner. In the cited case last date fixed for hearing of case was holiday and case was taken up on the next date. On that date case was again adjourned without passing order. That on failure to produce evidence on the next date of hearing, case would proceed forthwith after closing of evidence but in the case in hand although on 10-3-2009 it was a holiday and file was taken up on 11-3-2009 and in the presence of the parties on 11-3-2009 on the request of the defendant petitioner last final opportunity was given to him to produce his evidence on 25-5-2009. On this date, the defendant again failed to produce his evidence. With utmost humility it is my considered opinion that learned trial Court rightly closed the right of producing the evidence of the defendant and further proceeded in the trial of the case.
12. On 11-3-2009 request was made for adjournment by the defendant and trial Court provided last final opportunity to defendant to produce evidence on 25-5-2009. Prior to this many opportunities were given to petitioner/defendant for producing his evidence, but he failed to produce his evidence. There are concurrent findings with regard to the closing of evidence. Order dated 25-5- 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge and order dated 9-9-2009 passed by the learned Additional' District Judge are quite legal, just and based on cogent reasons.
13. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.