' This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated 5th February, 1979 of Sh. Azhar Hafeez, Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, affirming a judgment and decree dated 13th November, 1975 of Mr. Zulfiqar Ali, Civil Judge, Depalpur, whereby the appellant's suit for declaration that they are the owners in possession of the land in dispute and for permanent injunction that the respondents be permanently restrained from interfering in their possession was dismissed.
2. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the land in dispute measuring 9 Kanals 16 Marlas situated in Mauza Pareywala, Tehsil Depalpur was originally owned by Qutab Din the predecessor-in- interest of respondents Nos. 6 and 7. The appellant's case was that Qutab Din had sold the land in dispute to the appellants through a registered sale-deed dated 24th June, 1967 which was executed on behalf of Qutub Din by his general attorney, namely, Sardar Ali. The power of attorney was allegedly executed in favour of the general attorney on 14th April, 1967. Later on Qutub Din died in the year 1970. Thereafter the sons of Qutub Din had the mutation which had been entered in favour of the appellants, cancelled, and sold the land in dispute to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 on 26th December,1973.
3. Six issues were framed in the case but the appellants failed to produce any evidence despite having been granted several opportunities for the purpose. The alleged sale-deed made in their favour as also the general power of attorney allegedly executed in favour of Sardar Ali were not placed on the file, nor were these documents mentioned in the list of documents or the list of reliance attached with the plaint. Learned Civil Judge applying the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.
P. C closed the evidence on 25th September, 1975 and dismissed the appellant's suit. It was held to the effect that the appellants had failed to prove the validity of the sale alleged to have been made in their favour.
4. In their grounds of appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, the appellants submitted that they had deposited the expenses for witnesses in Court and as such, it was the responsibility of the Court to summon them and that in any case, the appellants who were present in Court on 25th September, 1975 when their evidence was closed, should have been allowed to appear as their own witnesses. Learned Additional District Judge found that repeated opportunities were given to the appellants to produce their evidence but they did not do so, and that the closure of their evidence under the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C. P. C. Was correct. The Court also found that it was for the appellants who were present before the trial Court on 25th September, 1975 to have offered themselves as witnesses and it was not for the Court to direct them to appear as such. In this view of the matter, their appeal was dismissed.
5. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that since process fee and diet money had been deposited in Court. Their evidence could not be closed under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. For their failure to bring witnesses. The contention is without any substance. The record shows that the appellants did not deposit any process fee at all. It is true that they deposited expenses for the witnesses on 17th September, 1975 but these had been deposited late, because the case had been set down for hearing for 25th September, 1975. In any case no process fee having been deposited, it cannot be said that it was the duty of the Court to have summoned the witnesses. The decision of the Courts below, is in accordance with the material on the record and is correct.
6. Learned counsel .For the appellants has also contended that the appellants who were present in Court should have been allowed to appear as their own witnesses and that all that was necessary for them to do was to prove the general power of attorney and the sale-deed executed in their favour, by the general attorney. There is no merit in this contention' either, because I find that there is nothing on record to suggest that it was the Court who had in any way prevented the appellants from appearing as witnesses. It was for the appellants to have come forward to appear as witnesses and there is no doubt that the Court would have allowed them to do so. It is also to be noted that it is for the first time in this second! Appeal, that the appellants have filed the sale-deed executed in their favour, and a copy of the general power of attorney executed by Qutub' Din in favour of Sardar Ali. An application is also filed under the provisions of Order XLI, rule 27, C. P. C.
Praying that the appellants he allowed to produce additional evidence.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the alleged sale made in favour of the appellants was a nullity being in contravention of the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No, 115, and that in order to get over the difficulty, the appellant had made interpretations in the sale-deed, whereby they had increased the areas which was shown as having been sold to them. An examination of the document clearly shows that figures of the measurement of area having been sold to appellants, have been interpolated. It appears that it was for this reasons that the appellants had refrained from filing these documents in trial Court, and from leading any evidence in the case. Learned counsel for the respondents has also shown to me a certified copy of the sate- deed, which shows that the area sold was considerably less than the interpolated figures in the documents placed on record.
8. In the circumstances, no case for allowing additional evidence is made out. There is no merit in this appeal which accordingly dismissed with costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.