' The precise facts leading for disposal of the instant civil revision are that Bashir Ahmad respondent instituted a suit under Order =II Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the basis of promote dated 18.08.2004 against the petitioner/defendant before the learned trial Court on 11.04.2005. The petitioner/defendant was granted leave to contest the suit vide order dated 23.05.2005 and in due course of the proceedings, the written statement was also filed by the petitioner/defendant. The learned trial Court captured the disputed area of facts by framing certain issues on 16.06.2005 and invited the plaintiff/respondent to lead his evidence. Then in compliance of direction of the Court, the respondent/plaintiff got recorded statements of Ashiq Hussain PW/1, Ijaz Hussain PW/2 and he himself appeared as PW/3 on 29.11.2005. Then the petitioner got recorded his part examination-in- chief as DW/1 on 13.01.2010 and on the same day the petitioner/defendant moved an application for re-summoning of plaintiff/respondent (PW/3) for further cross-examination. Another application for presentation of receipts/cash memos. Was also moved by the petitioner/defendant on the same day. Both the said applications were dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 09.02.2010, hence the instant civil revision.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. The respondent/plaintiff instituted a summary suit before the learned trial Court under Order =VII Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on 11.04.2005 and PW/1 to PW/3 were examined by the learned trial Court on 29.11.2005, who were duly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant. The perusal of statement of plaintiff/PW/3 reveals that learned. Counsel for the petitioner/defendant cross-examined the said PW at length, which was reduced into writing over three pages. This matter remained pending for another four years and two months, when only part examination-in-chief of Haji Muhammad DW/1 was got recorded by the petitioner/defendant on 13.01.2010 and on the same date the above referred two applications were moved by the petitioner/defendant. The perusal of first application for re-summoning of the respondent/PW-3 reveals that no plausible ground was pleaded therein by the petitioner/defendant to re-cross- examine the said witness. Even, today again learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant feels himself handicapped to respond that on what count PW/3 is required to be re-summoned for cross-examination. It is also settled principle of law that a party to the lis cannot be allowed to fill up lacunas, which he had left during the course of recording of evidence and the law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. The learned trial Court rightly dismissed the said application while assigning eminent reasons. However, as far as the other application for bringing on record the receipts/cash memos, is concerned, suffice it to say that no plausible ground has been urged by the petitioner/defendant in the said application that as to why these receipts/cash memos. Could not be appended by the petitioner/defendant along with his written statement or entered in the list of reliance. If such documents were duly entered in the list of reliance, then the petitioner could bring on record the said receipts through the modes provided in statutory provisions of law by producing author or signatory of the said receipts. However without the examination of said persons, the private documents could not be received on file by the Court. The filing of both the applications before the learned trial Court at a later stage in a suit of summary nature was nothing, but to prolong the suit pending before the learned trial Court for the last about 10-years and 06 months and the learned trial Court could not finalize its proceeding, despite the fact that the same were required to be finalized by the trial Court in a summary manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order rendered by the learned trial Court calling for any interference by this Court in the exercise of revision jurisdiction, the scope whereof is narrower and restricted only to the extent of correcting errors of law and facts, if are found to have been committed by the subordinate Courts.
4. Resultant, the instant civil revision being devoid of any merit is dismissed with costs of Rs.
10,000/-