ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J. - This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order dated 16.5.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sialkot whereby petitioner's suit under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code ibid was dismissed for want of evidence. It also assails the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot whereby petitioner's appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge was confirmed.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order and judgment passed by learned Courts below are against law and facts without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner causing miscarriage of justice and liable to set aside.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Succinctly facts leading to this civil revision are that the petitioner lodged a suit for declaration, etc. Against the Managing Director, Sui Northern Gas, etc./respondents alleging that act of removal of gas meter and disconnection of the gas supply to the petitioner's factory as well as demand bill for Rs. 11,57,840/- pertaining to the month of June, 2009 are against law and facts, void and ineffective as against his rights. As consequential injunction directing the respondents to restore his gas connection by installing new meter. Respondents resisted the suit with contesting written statement contending that petitioner's gas meter was replaced on 4.4.2009 as found not showing EVC reading and the same was sent to the Central Meter Shop, Lahore for inspection; that as per report received from the Central Meter Shop, Lahore for inspection; that as per report received from the Central Meter Shop, Lahore the meter was found tampered and not working properly and whereupon the detection bill amounting to Rs. 11,14,159/- pertaining to the period 1.11.2008 to 4.4.2009 was issued to the petitioner in accordance with law. Respondents further contended that the sui gas connection of the petitioner cannot be restored without payment of the detection bill and that petitioner's suit based on misrepresentation of facts is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of divergent pleadings of the parties learned Trial Court framed issues on 1.10.2009.
Since the framing of issues till closing of evidence under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and dismissal of suit vide order dated 16.5.2012 as many as 28 adjournments were given to the plaintiff/petitioner. On seven occasions adjournments were given due to strike of the Bar. On four dates of hearing learned Judicial Officer was on leave and on two occasions adjournments were sought by learned counsel for the respondents. The remaining adjournments were granted on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner for non-availability of evidence. On 4.7.2011 adjournment was allowed on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner due to non-availability of his evidence subject to cost of Rs. 300/- with the caution of last opportunity besides warning that in case plaintiff failed to produce evidence his right to produce evidence will be closed. On the next date i.e. 8.10.2011 counsel for the petitioner appeared, however, memo turned up on behalf of the respondents therefore ex-parte proceedings were taken against the respondents and the case was adjourned for ex- parte evidence of the petitioner.
Consequently an application for setting aside of ex-parte proceedings was lodged by the respondents which remained pending uptill 5.3.2012 when the said application was granted subject to cost of Rs. 300/- and the case was again fixed for petitioner's evidence. On the adjourned date of hearing i.e. 9.4.2012 petitioner failed to produce evidence. On his request case was further adjourned to 19.4.2012. On the said date the petitioner again failed to produce the evidence and on the request of his counsel adjournment was granted with the caution of final and last opportunity in the interest of justice subject to cost besides warning that in case he failed to produce evidence his right to produce evidence would be closed under Order 17, Rule 3, CPC. On the adjourned date i.e. 16.5.2012 the petitioner again failed to produce the evidence therefore the learned Trial Court closed the petitioner's evidence under Order 17, Rule 3, CPC and dismissed the suit for want of evidence.
6. Above scanning of the interim orders/proceedings before the learned Trial Court therefore makes it crystal clear that ample opportunities were granted to the petitioner to produce his evidence, with costs and specific warnings. No cogent reason is advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for his failure to produce the evidence on the fixed date of hearing i.e. 16.5.2012.
Needless to say that conduct of a party is a relevant fact in the administration of justice. Certainly a party to the list cannot be allowed to play hide and seek with the Court and to prolong the matter unnecessarily as well as to engage the machinery of the State department unnecessarily as per his whims and caprice besides wasting precious time of the Court. Needless to say that Rules of Procedure are enacted to regulate the safe administration of justice in accordance with law and to check unnecessary delay in resolving the dispute between the parties. It is noteworthy that law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. In this case conduct of the petitioner clearly reveals that he was least interested in pursuing the matter and has also miserably failed to show any good sufficient reason for non-production of the evidence on the fixed date of hearing. Therefore learned Trial Court exercising its jurisdiction in terms of Order 17, Rule 3, CPC has rightly closed the evidence and dismissed the petitioner's suit in accordance with law. Reliance is made upon Executive Engineer, Peshawar Vs. Messrs Tour Muhammad & Sons and 4 others (1983 SCMR 619).
7. I do not find any jurisdictional error, factual or legal infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below. Therefore, this civil revision having no merit is dismissed in limine.