' Through this revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908), the petitioners have challenged the validity of order dated 24.02.2007 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan whereby learned trial Court after closing evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs dismissed their suit for declaration and permanent injunction under Order-XVII Rule-3 of C.P.C. And judgment and decree dated 04.03.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan whereby appeal filed by the petitioners against order and decree dated 24.02.2007 passed by learned trial Court was dismissed.
2.The material facts for the purpose of appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties are that the petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration against respondents/defendants maintaining therein that they were in possession of the suit land, detail of which was fully described in the head note of the plaint, and the respondents/defendants had no concern with the suit land. It was further maintained that predecessor of petitioners/plaintiffs, namely, Muhammad Aslam had purchased land measuring 35-kanals 19-marlas from respondents/defendants through registered sale-deed and Mutation No. 1637 dated 09.09.1992. In consequence of sale-deed Mutation Nos.1426 dated 23.01.1989, 1509 dated 24.07.1990 and 1510 dated 24.07.1990 were sanctioned. Thereafter inheritance Mutation No. 202 dated 13.12.1995 was also sanctioned after the death of predecessor of petitioners. It was further maintained that the inquiry report submitted by the 'Magistrate initiated on the application of Respondent No. 7 recommending review of aforesaid mutation was illegal. The orders dated 22.05.2001 and 23.08.2001 for review of Mutations No. 1426, 1509, 1510 & 1637 were also called in question through the said suit.
3.The process initiated by learned trial Court for effecting the service of defendants was responded and the respondents/defendants appeared in the Court and contested the suit by raising different objections. It was specifically pleaded in the written statement filed by Respondents No. 6 & 7 that predecessor of petitioners/plaintiffs obtained the land in dispute on lease from their father and after his death sale-deed was got registered by committing forgery and fraud.
4. On the basis of divergent pleadings raised by the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- 1.Whether plaintiffs are owners in possession of disputed property, impugned orders are wrong, against law and facts, without notice to the plaintiffs and without authority, hence, ineffective against the rights of plaintiffs? OPP 2.Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for declaration and injunction as prayed for? OPP 3.Whether valuation of suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction is not fixed properly, if so, its effect? OPD 6 & 7.
4.Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD 6 & 7.
5.Whether the suit is filed on the basis of forged and fake sale-deeds, hence, plaintiffs are not entitled to any discretionary relief? OPD 6 & 7.
6.Whether the suit is filed to arrest the legal proceedings being initiated by the Defendants No. 1 to 4, if so, its effect? OPD 6 & 7.
7.Whether civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit, if so, its effect? OPD 6 & 7.
8.Whether the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious, hence, liable to be dismissed with special costs of Rs. 20,000/-per defendant? OPD 6 & 7 9.Relief.
5. After framing of issues on 18.04.2002 the case was adjourned for recording of evidence of the petitioners/ plaintiff& More than sufficient opportunities were granted to them by learned trial Court to adduce their evidence but they failed to do so. Resultantly, pursuant to stark failure of the plaintiffs to produce their evidence despite availing several opportunities, their right to produce evidence was closed under Order-XVII Rule 3, C.P.C. And the suit was thsmissed vide order and decree dated 24.02.2007.
6. The said order and decree was challenged by petitioners/plaintiffs in Appeal No. 32-13 of 2007 on 24.03.2007 which met with the same fate and was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 04.03.2009. Hence, this revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners were not granted sufficient opportunities by learned trial Court to adduce evidence; that the petitioners were not put to notice by learned trial Court before closing their right to produce evidence; that partial evidence of petitioners remained available on some dates but learned trial Court did not record their statements; that various adjournments on which learned Presiding Officer was on leave cannot be attributed to the petitioners and learned trial Court should have granted proper opportunities to the petitioners to produce their evidence and that the impugned order passed by learned trial Court being harsh in nature is liable to be set-aside.
8. Learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for Respondents No. 6 & 7 while supporting the conclusions drawn by both learned Courts below vehemently opposed this petition maintaining that sufficient opportunities were provided by learned trial Court to the petitioners to produce evidence but they failed to do so.
9. Arguments heard and record perused.
10. The record available with this petition clearly indicates that the suit was filed on 06.09.2001 and issues were framed on 18.04.2002. Learned trial Court had granted more than sufficient opportunities to the petitioners/plaintiffs for production of their evidence in support of their case but they miserably failed to do so. The suit remained pending for recording of evidence of the plaintiffs w.e.f 18.04.2002 to 24.02.2007 about five years when the impugned order of closing evidence and dismissal of suit was passed by learned trial Court. On 17.02.2014 the suit was fixed for recording of evidence of the plaintiffs but evidence was not available and learned trial Court adjourned the proceedings to 24.02.2007 granting final opportunity to plaintiffs to produce evidence on the next date of hearing. On 24.02.2007 learned trial Court called the case twice, kept the suit pending till 2:55 p.m. And waited for evidence of the plaintiffs but the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to produce their evidence. In the circumstances, the petitioners/plaintiffs practically made it impossible for learned trial Court to further progress with the suit by not producing evidence. In this eventuality the learned trial Court had no option but to close the evidence and dismiss the suit.
It is irksome to portray that the litigants seek and the Courts grant adjournments at the drop of hat.
In case of refusal by the Courts the litigants arrange all type of strategies to protract the litigation.
Due to this calculated attempt of the litigants civil disputes in our civil Courts drag on and on for decades and misplaced sympathy of the Courts compound the malady further. It is time to realize that unnecessary adjournments do dent the efficiency of judicial process and the faith of litigant public in this process is losing day by day. No litigant has a right to halt the procedure of law. This case is classic example of abuse of process of law. The plaintiffs/petitioners miserably failed to produce evidence for about five years and at the last learned trial Court was forced by the circumstances to close the evidence and dismiss the suit.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court of Pakistan in a latest pronouncement reported as "Rana Tanveer Khan v.
Naseer-ud-Din and others" (2015 SCM R 1401) while dealing with the similar proposition held as under:- "In the present case, as mentioned above, it is clear from the record that the appellant had availed four opportunities to produce his evidence and in two of such orders (the last in the chain) he was cautioned that such opportunity granted to him at his request shall be the last one, but still on the day when his evidence was closed in terms of Order XVII Rule 3, CPC no reasonable ground was propounded for the purposes of failure to adduce the evidence and justification for further opportunity, therefore, notwithstanding that these opportunities granted to the appellant were only in a span of about 1 month and 26 days, yet his case squarely fell within the mischief of the provisions ibid and his evidence was rightly closed by the trial Court."
' Reference in the above context may also advantageously be made to the cases of "Ghulam Qadir alias Qadir Bakhsh v. Haji Muhammad Suleman and 6 others" (PLD 2003 SC 180), "Abdul Shakoor and others v. Provinee of the Punjab and 4 others" (2005 SCM R 1673) and "Syed Tasleem Ahmad Shah v. Sajawal Khan, etc." (1985 SCM R 585).
12. All the above discussion clearly persuaded me to hold that impugned order closing right of petitioners to produce evidence and dismissing the suit was passed in order to save administration of justice and the penal provision was invoked due to failure of the petitioners/plaintiffs to produce the evidence, therefore, I find that complete justice has been done and learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that learned trial Court had exercised its discretion capriciously or arbitrarily in passing the impugned order dated 24.02.2007 upheld by the learned lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 04.03.2009.
13. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any legal infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments and decrees rendered by both learned Courts below. Resultantly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.