' WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.-- Impugned herein is the judgment and decree dated 29-9-2008 of learned Additional District Judge-I, Charsadda whereby appeal of the petitioners against the order dated 3-3-2007 of learned Civil Judge-III, Charsadda has been dismissed.
2. Short but relevant facts of the case are that the predecessor of petitioners filed a suit for declaration, permanent prohibitory injunction and possession etc. Regarding the suit-land fully described in the heading of the plaint. The respondents were put on notice who contested the suit by filing written statement. During the trial, the predecessor of petitioners/plaintiff utterly failed to produce his evidence on various occasions as the case was repeatedly adjourned on his request and lastly warning under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Was given. On 24-2-2007, a final warning was administered to plaintiff to produce his complete evidence on 3-3-2007. On the said date instead of producing his evidence, petitioners 2 to 4 being his sons preferred an application for impleadment in the suit, however, despite issuing of strict warning, the predecessor of petitioners once again failed to comply with the orders, therefore, the learned trial court was constrained to strike off his evidence by dismissing the suit under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Vide order dated 3-3- 2007. Feeling dissatisfied with the said order, the plaintiff filed appeal while petitioners 2 to 4 filed revision petition, which were clubbed together and disposed of through the single impugned judgment and decree dated 29-9-2008 of learned Additional District Judge-I, Kohat, hence the revision petition in hand.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the findings of learned courts below are based on conjectures and surmises, which are not sustainable in law; that the reasons recorded by learned courts below in their impugned findings are not supported by material on record, therefore, the same have no value in the eyes of law; that the predecessor of petitioners was the sole owner of the entire Khasra Number in dispute by virtue of inheritance, sale and private partition and the vendors/ respondents or their predecessor-in-interest had no right to alienate any portion thereof in favour of respondents 19 to 33 rather they have illegally constructed the purchased area, which controversy could not be resolved after recording of evidence; that valuable rights of the petitioners have been involved in the matter but the same were denied by learned courts for no valid reason; that the predecessor of petitioners was present for recording his statement along with his counsel on 3-3-2007 but since petitioners 2 to 4 sought their impleadment in the case through an application and their counsel was insisting upon disposal of his application, therefore, the evidence could not be recorded. The said fact is clear from/he record but the learned trial court considered the same as a negligent act on the part of plaintiff, hence his right of producing evidence was wrongly struck off, which is unwarranted.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents while rebutting the arguments from other side contended that the learned trial court provided sufficient opportunity to predecessor of petitioners to produce his evidence and on the last two occasions warnings were administered to him for doing the needful but he turned a dear ear to such directions rather tried to prolong the matter by applying delaying tactics, therefore, his defence was rightly struck off and that the learned appellate court while agreeing with the findings of learned trial court dismissed the appeal as well as revision of petitioners 2 to 4 by recording a well reasoned judgment, hence the conclusion drawn requires no interference in the facts and circumstances of the case. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The record reveals that after filing of suit, the respondents were put on notice, who on their appearance contested the same by filing written statement. As per pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and case was put to trial. During the proceedings, the predecessor of petitioners was directed on certain occasions to produce his evidence. Lastly on two dates, warnings were administered to him to produce his evidence, otherwise his right of producing evidence would be struck off. In spite of clear cut directions, the plaintiff/predecessor of petitioners utterly failed to produce his evidence rather on the crucial date i,e, 3-3-2007, his sons preferred an application for impleadment in the suit as plaintiffs just to delay the disposal of case. Lastly, the learned trial court was constrained to apply the provision of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. By striking down the defence of plaintiff, A which culminated in dismissal of suit as well as application for impleadment.
6. The record is suggestive of the fact that the plaintiff has not pursued his cause by producing his evidence in time. Several opportunities were provided to him to produce his evidence but he kept on trying to prolong the matter one way or the other for which no plausible explanation has been tendered. The plaintiff despite certain directiohs/warnings given to him has failed to pursue his case by producing his evidence, hence the learned courts below rightly non-suited him.
7. The learned appellate court in the concluding para of his judgment observed that petitioners 2 to 4 may prefer a fresh suit on the basis of Mutation No,181, which was filed as Suit No,18/1 but was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of compromise between the parties vide order of learned Civil Judge, Charsadda dated 30-10-2010. The copy of the said order produced is placed on file.
8. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings on question of law and fact to which no exception could be taken. No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect has been pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners in the impugned findings, which could justify interference by this court in its revisional jurisdiction, a limited one.
' In view of the above, the revision petition in hand being devoid of legal merits is dismissed with no order as to cost.