' The instant Civil Revision No. 50 of 2008 has been filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff against the order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, according to which appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed filed by him against the order dated 25.01.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bahawalpur, according to which application of the present petitioner to produce the additional evidence was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that present petitioner being plaintiff on 05.01.1993 filed suit for specific performance regarding suit land, whose details are mentioned in the head-note of the plaint. Present respondents submitted their written statements and out of divergent pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed issues on 27.07.1997. The right of the present petitioner to produce evidence was closed under Order XVII Rule 3, CPC by the learned trial Court on 19.09.2005.
Thereafter, on 11.12.2006, present petitioner moved an application to produce additional evidence before the learned trial Court which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 25.01.2007. Appeal filed by the present petitioner was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide order dated 29.11.2007. Hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned orders of both the Courts below are against law and facts on the file and are liable to be set-aside. It is further submitted that both the Courts below have committed illegality while dismissing the application of the present petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, whereas no one is present from the side of the respondents.
5. The present petitioner being plaintiff filed suit for specific performance on 05.01.1993. Issues were framed on 27.07.1997 but present petitioner was failed to produce his evidence despite availing many opportunities and his right to produce evidence was closed by the learned trial Court under Order XVII Rule 3, CPC vide order dated 19.09.2005. Civil Revision filed by the present petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur vide order dated 06.11.2006 and the above mentioned orders have attained finality. Thereafter, present petitioner on 11.12.2006 filed application to produce the additional evidence which was dismissed by the Courts below through the impugned orders. The present petitioner cannot reopen the matter by filing application to produce additional evidence which has already been decided by the Courts below through the orders dated 19.09.2005 and 06.11.2006, mentioned above, by closing the right to produce evidence under Order XVII Rule 3, CPC. Both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the application of the present petitioner to produce additional evidence through the impugned orders.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality in the impugned orders. This civil revision has no merits and is hereby dismissed.