' MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.---This revision petition is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 27-9-2012 and 7-9-2013 passed by learned Civil Judge, Burewala, District Vehari and learned Additional District Judge, Burewala District Vehari whereby the suit of the petitioner for pre- emption was dismissed, and the appeal lodged by him also met the same fate.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that Muhammad Shoban instituted a suit for pre-emption in the court of learned Civil Judge, Burewala, District Vehari to pre- empt a sale made through mutation No,1555 attested on 18-1-2011 in respect of land measuring 3 kanals 9 marlas, which was purchased by Muhammad Aslam and ten others from Ghazi Ghulam Sarwar and Karam sons of Muhammad.
3. The petitioner/plaintiff had set out the details in the plaint as to how he came to know of the sale mutation sought to be pre-empted by him. It was further averred by him that he is Shafi Sharik, Shafi Khalit and" Shafi Jar within the meaning of Section 6 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991.
4. The defendants/respondents entered appearance, filed written statement, controverting the assertions of the petitioner/plaintiff, It was maintained by them that the petitioner did not have any cause of action, that his suit was barred by time, that he did not fulfill the demands of pre-emption in terms of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, with the result that the suit was liable to be dismissed.
5. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has superior right of pre-emption qua the vendees/defendants? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled requirements of talbs in accordance with law? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for possession through pre-emption against the defendants? OPP
(4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff has waived his right of pre-emption? OPD
(7) Whether the defendants are entitled to receive expenses of mutations Rs,30,000 and expenses incurred for improvement of suit property Rs,15,00,000 from the plaintiff, in case the suit is decreed?
OPD
(8) Whether the suit is false and defendants are entitled to special cost under Section 36-A C.P.C.
OPD .(9) Relief.
' After having framed the issues, the learned trial court called upon the petitioner/plaintiff to produce evidence. However, the plaintiff repeatedly failed to adduce evidence in support of his case. From a perusal of the order sheet appended to the revision petition, it is crystal clear that the court seized of the suit not only exercised restraint but also showed indulgence to the plaintiff. Be that as it may, on 11-9-2012 the plaintiff was put on notice that no further opportunity shall be given to him, and subject to the payment of costs of Rs,500, he was provided the final opportunity to produce his entire evidence on 27-9-2012. On 27-9-2012 the petitioner/plaintiff himself was not in attendance nor did he examine any witness. The trial court was left with no option but to close the evidence for the plaintiff by invoking the provision contained in Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P,C.
6. After narrating the background in which the suit was instituted by Muhammad Shoban, the plaintiff and recounting the events that led to the closing of evidence for the plaintiff, the learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Burewala district Vehari proceeded to dismiss the suit vide judgment and decree dated 27-9-2012.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 27-9-2012 passed by the learned trial court, Muhammad Shoban, the plaintiff/petitioner herein lodged an appeal before an Additional District Judge, Burewala District Vehari. After listening to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Appellate Court upheld the findings of the learned trial court, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 17-9-2013.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner was repeatedly asked to pinpoint the illegality or material irregularity to have been committed by the learned courts below. His constant refrain was that this court is to show indulgence to the petitioner by granting him one last opportunity to produce the evidence. Otherwise, he neither found fault with any of the interim orders passed by the learned trial court nor did he seriously challenge the findings of the learned Appellate court.
9. I have gone through the record appended to this petition, besides perusing the judgments and decrees impugned before this court. Both the judgments are well-reasoned and well-argued. The petitioner has only himself to blame for the consequences that ensued on account of his utter negligence. The trial court went out of its way to accommodate him and to provide him opportunity after opportunity so as to enable him t adduce evidence, if any, to substantiate his claim made in the plaint. But the petitioner slacked to the extent that on the last date of hearing, i,e,, 27-9-2012, he himself did not turn up to make his own statement in support of his case. If he was serious enough to pursue his case, he must have taken heed of the order dated 11-9-2012 by which he was adequately put on notice that he was being provided last/final opportunity to produce evidence, with the rider that he would have to pay costs of Rs,500 before producing evidence on 27-9-2012.
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that the evidence for the plaintiff/petitioner under Order XVII, Rule. 3, C.P.C. Was rightly closed, and the trial court did not commit any material irregularity in doing so. Under section 115, C.P.C., is court would not interfere with the orders passed by the courts below unless they are found to have been passed without jurisdiction or in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon the courts below or their judgments/orders suffered from material irregularities bordering on illegalities, which cannot be countenanced or condoned. Since the case of the petitioner does not fall in any of the categories specified in section 115 C.P.C. Warranting the interference of this court, it would entail dismissal. There being no force in the revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
Revision .Dismissed.