' This civil revision assails the legality and validity of judgment and decree dated 11.06.2004 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, D.G. Khan whereby' the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2004 rendered by the learned Civil Judge, D.G. Khan was dismissed.
2. Shortly narrated the facts out of which instant petition has arisen are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration claiming themselves to be owners in possession of the property described in headnote of the plaint. The respondents resisted the suit on legal as well as factual grounds by filing written statement. Controversial pleadings of the parties, necessitated framing of as many as 12-issues including relief and parties were directed to produce their respective evidence. The petitioners failed to produce their evidence and as such their evidence was closed by invoking the provision of Order XVII Rule 3 CPC vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2004. Being dis-satisfied with the decision of learned trial Court, they filed an appeal but remained unsuccessful as their appeal was dismissed on 11.06.2004. Hence they filed instant revision petition before this Court seeking annulment of concurrent judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the adequate opportunity has not been provided to the petitioners for production of their evidence. To substantiate his contention, he has taken me through the interim orders passed by the learned trial Court. The learned Courts below exercised the jurisdiction in a way which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Adds that absence of the special attorney of the petitioners on 29.03.2004 was not intentional or willful but it happened due to illness which fact has not been considered by the learned Appellate Court. Hence the impugned judgments and decrees are not sustainable in the eye of law.
4. On the other hand, the learned Law Officer opposed the instant petition by defending the impugned judgments and decrees and prayed for dismissal of instant petition.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record.
6. Although quick decisions of the eases are, no doubt, an admirable object and a good thing also, but justice is still better. Perusal of the order sheet reveals that prior to invoking penal action against the petitioners, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave for two successive dates as is evident from the interlocutory orders dated 12.12.2003 and 10.12.2004 and on next date, the evidence of the petitioners was closed under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC. It is also pertinent to mention here that on some of the dates, the evidence of the petitioners was present but it could not be recorded.
Anxiety of the Courts of justice has always been to lean in favor of adjudication on merits unless the litigant by his own conduct makes it impossible for the Court to proceed further in that direction. Human lapse is always there, but unless it was of a grave magnitude attracting penal action which in the present case was of dismissal, Court may take a lenient view of the lapse by allowing an opportunity for the decision of the controversy on merits.
7. For the reasons given above, the instant petition is allowed; impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are hereby set aside the case is remanded to the learned trial Court for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. The learned trial Court shall give one clear-cut opportunity to the petitioners to adduce their evidence and in case they fail, law shall take its own course without any further leniency. As the case is hanging fire since 1999, the learned trial Court shall decide it within a period of four (04) months without fail. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 22.07.2015.
6. With this direction, this petition stands accepted and case remanded.