' In a suit brought by the petitioner, Mian Ghulam AU, he led his affirmative evidence whereupon the respondent, Ali Nawaz Khan, who was defendant in the suit, produced his own evidence. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for petitioner's evidence in rebuttal, but it was not produced by him although he was given three opportunities to do so. His case was, therefore, closed under Order XVII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and on the basis of the evidence on the record, his suit was dismissed. The petitioner then filed an appeal before an Additional District Judge but without success. He has, therefore, come up in revision to this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was wrongly assumed by the two Courts below that the petitioner had failed to produce his evidence despite having obtained three opportunities to do so. He filed a copy of order-sheet for the period from 20th October, 1979 to 23rd February, 1980 to support his plea. It shows that on 5th January, 1980, the petitioner had asked for an adjournment to make statement as his own witness and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 14th February, 1980. On that date, his counsel produced a medical certificate regarding the illness of the petitioner. The case was, therefore, adjourned to 21st February, 1980. On 21st February, 1980, none of the parties were present and the case was adjourned to 23rd February, 1980, for the petitioner's statement. On 23rd February, 1980, the counsel for the petitioner was present but as the petitioner was not himself in attendance his evidence was closed under Order XVII, rules 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner has not placed on record a copy of the orders made in the suit before 20th October, 1979, but even if these orders are not bothered about it is evident from copy of the orders produced before me that he was allowed three opportunities to make his statement. The two Courts below had, therefore, rightly proceeded on the premises that the petitioner had failed to adduce evidence although he was given three opportunities for the purpose.
3. The next argument raised by the learned counsel was that the trial Court had committed an illegality in deciding the suit on the same date on which the evidence of petitioner was closed.
According to him, the said Court ought to have disposed of the suit after the said date within a reasonable time. For this proposition, he placed reliance on Maulvi Abdul Aziz Khan v. Mst. Shah Jahan Begum and 2 others (1).
4. In the case of Maulvi Abdul Aziz Khan the suit was not decided on the same day when the evidence of a party was closed under Order XVII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but was adjourned for arguments, etc. The contention raised before the Supreme Court, therefore, was that the order of the trial Court adjourning the case on the said date was illegal because it did not proceed to decide the suit forthwith. On the other hand, it was maintained that the words "proceed to decide the suit forthwith" occurring in rule 3, did not imply that the suit shall be decided on the same day when the evidence is closed. On this, learned Judge of the Supreme Court interpreted the word "forthwith" as follows:- "Thus it is quite clear that the word 'forthwith' does not mean on the same day. The reasonable meaning of this word in the context of Order XVII, rule 3, C. P. C. Is that the Court should proceed to decide the suit within a reasonable time under the circumstances of the case. In or opinion, the view expressed in above decision that the suit should be decided on the same day is not in accordance with law."
Thus, what was held by the Supreme Court was that there is no harm if the suit is decided by the trial Court within a reasonable time after closing the evidence inasmuch as it is not necessary that the suit should be decided on the same day when the evidence is closed; but, surely, it was not ruled by the Supreme Court that an illegality or material irregularity is committed by the trial Court if the case is decided on the same day when the evidence is closed. The case of Maulvi Abdul Aziz Khan is, therefore, of no avail to the petitioner.
5. In view of the word "forthwith" used in rule 3 of Order XVII, the learned trial Court had the jurisdiction to decide the petitioner' suit on that very day when his evidence was closed and, therefore, the judgment anddj decree passed by that Court is not open to any valid exception.
6. There is no force in this petition. It is dismissed in limine.