' MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J. -- Rana Abdul Ali, the appellant preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the order as well as the judgment dated 16.03.2006 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasur whereby his evidence was closed under the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., resulting in the dismissal of the reference made to the Referee Court under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. The facts gleaned from the reference made to the Referee Court under the provisions of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are that the Land Acquisition Collector, National Highway Authority, Lahore acquired land measuring 207 Kanals, 15 Marlas, situated in village Umar Abad, Tehsil Patoki, Distict Kasur. This land was acquired for the National Highway Authority, which was to construct Wan Radah Ram Bypass. It seems that respondent No. 2, the Land Acquisition Collector proceeded under Section 17 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that confers special powers on a Land Acquisition Collector to acquire land in cases of urgency.
3. Since the appellant was not satisfied with the compensation award made by respondent No. 2, he prevailed upon him to make a reference to the Referee Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation. His stance was that he had constructed ten shops with the size of 8 feet into 20 feet each. Besides, he had three stores with the size of 15 feet into 14 feet each. His claim boiled down to this: that he was entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per square foot.
4. The respondents denied the claim made by the appellant and stuck to their stand. It was maintained by them that the compensation-cum-damages has already been awarded to him in accordance with his entitlement.
5. Given the divergent stands of the parties, the learned Referee Court framed the following issues on 02.09.2003.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the price of the land in question was assessed inadequately? If so, what is the proper amount of compensation to be awarded to the petitioner? OPP
(2) Whether the reference is barred by time? OPR
(3) Whether the petitioner is estopped to file this reference by his words and conduct? OPR
(4) Relief.
6. Following the framing of issues on 02.09.2003, the appellant was required to produce evidence on 09.10.2003. His evidence was not available on the aforesaid date, and the case was adjourned until 24.11.203. The following Table recapitulates the proceedings carried out by the learned Referee Court. {{TABLE}} Date of Hearing Proceedings carried out Result.
09.10.2003 Evidence not available.
24.11.2003 Evidence not available.
21.01.2004 Evidence not available.
24.02.2004 Evidence not available. Last opportunity was provided to produce evidence on 01.04.2004.
01.04.2004 Evidence not available.
Another final opportunity was provided subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 100/-.
22.05.2004 Evidence not available. Another last opportunity was given for producing evidence.
Date of Hearing Proceedings carried out Result.
26.07.2004 Evidence not available. Another last opportunity for production of evidence was given.
27.10.2004 Evidence not available. Another last opportunity was given for production of evidence.
31.01.2005 Evidence not available. Another last opportunity was afforded to produce evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs. 100/-.
25.03 .2005 Evidence not available. Last opportunity was given.
28.04.2005 Evidence partly available. . Request for producing complete evidence was allowed subject to the payment of costs of Rs.200/-, with the warning of providing no further opportunity.
13.06.2005 Evidence partly available. Request was made for allowing the production of complete evidence. Case was adjourned with the warning that no further opportunity to produce evidence Date of Hearing Proceedings carried out Result. would be afforded.
25.07.2005 Evidence present. The counsel for the appellant was not availab13.
28.09.2005 Evidence not available. Request for producing comp!Ete evidence was allowed with the arning of providing no further opportunity.
29.10.2005 Evidence not available. Request for producing complete evidence was allowed with the warning of providing no further opportunity.
14.12.2005 Evidence not available. Request for producing complete evidence was allowed subject to the payment of costs of Rs.
200/-. Absolute final opportunity was provided.
20.02.2006 Evidence not available. Last opportunity was provided.
13.03.2006 Evidence not available. Evidence not available Last opportunity was provided. The evidence was closed under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C.
16.03.2006 {{TABLE}} 7 As stated above the learned Referee Court almost a replication of that of 28.04.2005, with a difference that the appellant was not burdened with costs on that date. This brings us to the order sheet dated 25.07.2005. The evidence for the appellant was stated to be present, but his own counsel was busy before other Courts. Therefore, the appellant cannot take advantage of the fact that at least on one occasion his complete evidence was available. He has to thank his learned counsel who did not find time to examine the witnesses on 25.07.2905.
14. When the events of 28.04.2005, 13.06.2005 and 25.07.2005 are put in juxtaposition with other dates, it is observed that numerous opportunities were provided to the appellant to produce evidence, coupled with the imposition of costs, but he did not bother to take advantage thereof. .
The proceedings were conducted at a snail's pace. If the appellant really believed it his cause, he should have taken time by the fore His approach throughout the proceedings has been casual, happy-go-lucky and careless. Remarkably, he was burdened with costs on four dates but he did not pay them even once, and yet succeeded in getting adjournments. In the circumstances, the learned Referee Court had no option but to draw a line under the proceedings.
15. In the case of "Syed Tahir Hussain Mehmoodi and others v. Agha Syed Liaqat All and others"
(2014 SCM R 637), it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that:- "4 We are of the candid view that provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C. P. C. Are penal in nature and as per the settled law such provisions should be strictly construed and applied, therefore once the case of a delinquent litigant squarely falls within the purview and mischief of the law (ibid) then neither any concession should be shown to such litigant nor a lenient view favoring him should be resorted to; this should not even be permissibly done on the touchstone of exercise of discretionary power of the Court and/or on the approach that technicalities of procedure should not be allowed to impede the interest of justice, and/or that the litigants should not be knocked out on technical grounds, and that adversarial lis should be settled on merits. If such approach is liberally followed and resorted to there shall be no discipline in the adjudication of the civil litigation and the delinquent whose case though is squarely hit and covered by the penal provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Would be given a chance to his advantage and to the disadvantage of his opposing side. This is not the spirit of the law at all. It may not be out of place to mention here that to apply and to adhere to law is not a mere technicality, rather it is duty cast upon the Court as per Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to do so.
Thus where Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Is duly attracted, the Court has no option except to take action in accord therewith."
16. The head note of the case of "Ghulam Qadir alias Qadir Bakhsh v. Haji Muhammad Suleman and 6 others" (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 180) may advantageously be reproduced:--- "---0. XVII, Rr. 3, 2, 1 & 0. IX---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Where on any date the hearing of the suit is adjourned and parties or any of them failed to appear, Court, under 0. XVII, R.
2, C.P.C. May proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed by 0. IX, C.P.C.--- Petitioner, in the present case, admittedly failed to cause attendance of his witnesses from 3.1.1995 to 14.7.1999 without any valid reason---Neither the petitioner nor his witnesses or his counsel was present even on the last date of hearing, which was a sufficient cause to close his evidence--- Trial Court, in circumstances, while exercising jurisdiction under 0. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. Had not committed any illegality."
"The provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 1 of Order XVII of the C.P.C. (Lahore Amendment) would also be of no help to the case of the petitioner as he admittedly failed to show sufficient cause for grant of the adjournment."
"In the present case the petitioner admittedly failed to cause the attendance of his witnesses from 3.1.1995 to 14.7.1999 without any valid reason. Even on the last date of hearing, neither he nor his witnesses or his Advocate was present which was a sufficient cause to close the evidence. Thus the Trial Court while exercising jurisdiction under Order XVII, rule 3 of the C.P.C., had not committed any illegality."
17. We are satisfied that the appellant did not have any sufficient cause for not producing evidence on 16.03.2006, when his evidence was closed by the learned Referee Court. We have also gone through the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. It deals with a case of two, three adjournments sought by the plaintiff. On one date, the hearing was adjourned when the counsel for the defendant expressly stated that he had no objection to the granting of adjournment. Apparently, the adjournments were made in routine. Only on one occasion, the plaintiff was put on notice that no further opportunity would be granted to him, but in the instant case such warnings were given to the appellant repeatedly and that too with costs. Therefore, the facts of the case reported as "Syed Tasleem Ahmad Shah v.
Sajawal Khan etc." (1985 SCM R 585) are clearly distinguishable. Even otherwise, it is well- established law that each and every case proceeds on its own facts. In this respect, reference may well be made to the observations made by the apex Court in the case of "Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem" (1994 SCM R 2213).
18. From the foregoing, it follows that no indulgence can be shown to the appellant and he cannot be granted another opportunity to produce evidence, particularly in the light of the incisive observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in its latest judgment reported as "Syed Tahir Hussain Mehmoodi and others v. Agha Syed Liaqat Ali and others" (2014 SCM R 637), (Supra).
19. Since the appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of the reference filed under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 nor did he examine himself in support of the assertions made by him, the learned Referee Judge rightly proceeded to dismiss the reference vide judgment dated 16.03.2006.
20. We find no force in this appeal, which accordingly is dismissed. R.F.A. Dismissed.