' The appellant filed a suit against the respondents for a declaration to the effect that she was an owner in possession of the suit land. The case . Of the appellant was that originally, the suit land belonged to her father Ghulam Ali and that he had newt sold the land to Muhammad Anwar respondent No. 1 and that the mutation had been got sanctioned by impersonating the father of the appellant before the Revenue Authorities. On these facts the appellant claimed herself entitled to one.Half of the suit land.
2. The suit was filed on 18th September, 1974 and the issues were learned on 10th June, 1975.
Thereafter the case had been adjourned for stweral adjournments but the appellant failed to produce her evidence which y,as finally closed on 17th November, 1976 and the suit was dismissed.
The appellant filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jhelum vide his order, dated 25th March, 1977.
3. A perusal of the record shows that the judgment has been pronounced under rule 3 of Order XVII, C. P. C. On the ground that the appellant had failed to supply summons duly filled in for the service of the witnesses. According to the appellant this report of the Ahmad was incorrect anti the summons were duly filled in and were banded over to a Ahmad with tuibana. From the list of witnesses it appears that the witnesses who were required to be summoned there were some Government officials and the parties could not be bound down to produce them in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Bashir Bibi v. Aminuddin (1). It is also stated that the appellant bad fallen ill and could not {{FOOT NOTE}}
(I) PLD 1973 SC 45 {{FOOT NOTE}} appear on 1/the November, 1976. It is submitted under these circumstances that the provisions of rule ,1 1)f Order XVII, C. P. C. Could not be invoked,
4. The learned counsel for the respondents could not support the order of proceeding against the appellant under rule 3, Order XVII, C, P. C. In the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the respondents has only submitted that the sole purpose of the appellant is to prolong the matter and to cause harassm ent of the respondents. I have perused the list of witnesses and prima facie it seems that all the Government officials who had been summoned could be eluminated by production of the certified copies
5. As the Order XVII, rule 3, C. P. C. Could not be justified in the circumstances of the case, as such, the order of the learned trial Court, dated 17th November, 1976, closing the evidence of the petitioner and the judgment and decree based thereon as well as the order of the learned District Judge, Jhelum affirming the same is also set aside. The appellant is directed to produce the certified copies of all the documents in Court which the witnesses had been shown in the list supposed to produce. The learned trial Court shall thereafter summon those witnesses out of list who are required to depose from their personal knowledge. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.