SHOAIB SAEED, J.---This civil revision is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 13-9-2013 passed by the Appellate Court remanding the case back to the trial Court for recording of respondents' evidence afresh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Abdul Rasheed filed a suit for possession through pre-emption. The contentions raised in the plaint were controvered by the respondents in their written statement. Petitioners produced six witnesses in support of averments made in the plaint and took almost ten years to complete their evidence. On closure of affirmative evidence of the petitioners on 5-3-2011 the case was fixed for evidence of the respondents for 22-3-2011. On the said date, respondents produced his oral evidence and on the same date, the case was fixed for documentary evidence of the respondents and evidence in rebuttal of the petitioners and also for final arguments for 25-3-2011. The case was re-fixed for arguments for 28-3-2011. On the said date, judgment and decree were passed. The said judgment and decree were assailed in,appeal. The Appellate Court observed that petitioners took ten years to conclude their evidence whereas only one opportunity was granted to the respondents for producing their evidence and without closure statement of the respondents and/or their counsel the case was fixed for documentary evidence of the petitioners. The Appellate Court also held that the case was decided by the trial Court in a haphazard manner, the order of the trial Court was set aside and case remanded on 13-9-2013 with the direction to record evidence of the respondents in accordance with law and decide the matter afresh. Hence, this Civil Revision.
3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that on 22-3-2011 after recording witnesses by the respondents no right was reserved for adducing more evidence, neither any objection raised by counsel for the respondents in respect of the orders passed. It was basically a procedural error, provisions of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Code are attracted wherein no decree can be reversed or modified for error, defect or irregularity not effecting merits of the case.
Reliance was placed on the case reported as Qazi Shams ur Rehman and another v. Chaman Dasta and others (2004 SCM R 1798) wherein it was held "Procedural defect should be closely linked to prejudice caused thereby-party so prejudiced must himself raise such objection---where party does not raise any objection, then Court should not do so suo motu". It was also contended that the provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. Were attracted.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. From the bare perusal of the order dated 22-3-2011 it is evident that evidence was produced by the respondents and no further opportunity for producing evidence was provided and the case was fixed for 25-3-2011 for final arguments. Prior to 22-3-2011 the case was fixed for the said purpose on the aforesaid date and only one opportunity for adducing evidence to the respondents was granted. The trial Court without closing the evidence of the respondents on 22-3-2011 fixed the case for final arguments for 25-3-2011. On the contrary, the case for adducing evidence by the petitioners started in the year 2001 and on 1-3-2011 statement of the petitioners' counsel closing oral evidence was recorded, whereafter a last opportunity for submitting the documentary evidence was given to the petitioners for 5-3-2011. It is evident that petitioners took almost 10 years for producing evidence, whereas the respondents were given only one opportunity for the same purpose. Respondents were deprived of the opportunity to lead evidence in the light of issues framed. Perusal of the orders passed by the Court after 5-3-2011 reflects undue haste which were in clear violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The citation referred supra (2004 SCM R 1798) is not attracted in the present case. So also Order XVIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. Is not helpful to the petitioners. The provisions of section 99 of the Civil Procedure Code are not relevant in the instant case. The order dated 22-3-2011 cannot be deemed a procedural mistake as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The impugned judgment and decree pissed by the Appellate Court dated 13-9-2013 were with jurisdiction as vested in it.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree which are upheld. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revision being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine.