1. MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.--- This revision petition has been filed against the orders of District Judge Mirpur dated 27-12-2013 and 10-1-2014, through which evidence of the present petitioners/defendants was closed.
2. 2.Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the respondent/plaintiff Amjad Naheem Qureshi filed a suit for cancellation of a gift-deed including specific performance of an agreement. The case was under process and at the stage of recording evidence of the present petitioners/defendants. On 27-12-2013, the date of hearing was fixed for evidence on behalf of the petitioners/defendants. No witness of the petitioners was present in the court and an opportunity was provided to the petitioners/defendants against a cost of Rs.500 and next date of hearing was fixed as 10-1-2014. On 10-1-2014, the petitioners/ defendants were present in the court and statement of the petitioner/ defendant No.2 Ameer Afzal was recorded partially and the remaining evidence of the petitioners/defendants was closed. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioners have filed the instant revision petition before this court.
3. 3.Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Ch. Muhammad Mumtaz Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that on 10-1-2014, both the petitioners were present for getting recorded their statements before the court but only partial statement of the petitioner Ameer Afzal was recorded and next date of hearing was fixed for completion of his remaining statement. On the same date, the learned District Judge Mirpur closed the remaining evidence of the petitioners/defendants except the statement of the petitioner Ameer Afzal. It was legal obligation of the learned Judge to give an opportunity for producing the remaining evidence on next date of hearing. The learned counsel requested to accept the revision petition setting aside the order regarding closing of the evidence and to provide an opportunity to the present petitioners/defendants to produce their remaining evidence before the court.
4. 4.While controverting, Mr. Kamran Taj Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that many opportunities were provided to the petitioners/defendants to produce evidence on their behalf but they failed to comply with the orders and directions of the court. The learned District Judge Mirpur has justly recorded the order for closing the evidence. The learned counsel requested to dismiss the revision petition.
5. 5.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in view of the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties made during the arguments carefully and minutely. The record reveals that on 10-1-2014, the petitioners/defendants Ameer Afzal and Khalid Muhammad Afzal were present in the court who paid the cost of Rs.500 to the other party. The partial statement of one of the petitioners Ameer Afzal was recorded on the said date and the next date of hearing was fixed for the statements of the petitioners/defendants. It is astonishing that the learned subordinate Judge started recording the statement of the said Ameer Afzal as a witness and did not complete his statement on the said date, while passed an order on the same day for closing the remaining evidence of the petitioners/defendants. It was not just and proper on behalf of the Presiding Officer to close the remaining evidence on the same day.
6. 6.Moreover, the record reveals that a counter-suit is also pending before the subordinate court and both the suits shall be disposed of through a single judgment. So, it seems just and proper to provide an opportunity for producing evidence on behalf of the petitioners/ defendants.
7. Having in view the above-mentioned circumstances, the instant revision petition is accepted and the order dated 10-1-2014 passed by the learned District Judge Mirpur is hereby set aside. The learned District Judge Mirpur is hereby directed to provide an opportunity for producing the remaining evidence to the petitioners/defendants and the statements of the witnesses produced by the present petitioners shall be completed on the date fixed for the purpose. No order as to the costs.