Precisely , a suit titled 'Maroof Hussain Shah v. Audit and Accounts Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. etc.' as instituted by the present petitioner , which was contested by the defendants. Issues were framed and evidence of the petitioner was recorded. Statements of D.Ws.1 to 4 were recorded. Cross examination on D.Ws. 3 & 4 was conducted on behalf of the petitioner and suit had been adjourned many a time for cross examination on D.Ws.1 and 2, but the petitioner side failed to conduct the same, so the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.08.2020 closed his right to cross examine the D.Ws.1 & 2. Feeling aggrieved of the said order , the petitioner filed revision petition against the same, but remained unsuccessful vide impugned order dated 08.09.2020; hence, the instant constitutional petition.
2. Heard.
3. Considering the arguments and perusing the record, made available, as well as going through the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below , it becomes diaphanous that the suit under discussion was instituted on 21.03.2003 and after completion of evidence of the petitioner/plaintif f on 07.03.2019, examination in chief of D.Ws.
1 & 2 was recorded on 30.03.2019 and 04.05.2019, respectively . After that, on different dates including 23.10.2019, 07.11.2019, 14.11.2019, 16.11.2019, 26.11.2019, 03.12.2019, 11.12.2019, 14.12.2019, 21.12.2019, 08.01.2020, 20.01.2020, 25.01.2020, 29.01.2020, 08.02.2020, 15.02.2020, 19.02.2020, 25.02.2020, 03.03.2020, 10.03.2020, 19.03.2020, 04.08.2020, 05.08.2020, 08.08.2020, 12.08.2020, 13.08.2020, 18.08.2020 and on 20.08.2020, the D.W.1 and D.W.2 were present for facing the cross examination but learned counsel for the petitioner did not cross examine them and requested for adjournments on each and every date. Even last and final opportunity was granted with clear-cut warning that in case of failure to conduct cross examination upon the said D.Ws. his right to cross examine shall be closed but even then such indifferent and adamant demeanour was adopted and no heed was paid to the orders of the learned trial Court. Despite such a leniency shown by the learned trial Court instead of conducting cross examination on the said D.Ws., the learned counsel for the petitioner asked for reference of the case, which shows his unyielding and obdurate attitude towards the orders of the Court. The above picture of affairs makes it vivid that how the petitioner pursued his case and shows his obedience toward the orders of the Court; thus, such like indolent persons cannot seek favour of law, because law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. In this regard reliance is placed on Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer-Ud-Din and others (2015 SCMR 1401 ), wherein it has been unequivocally held:- '............... it is clear from the record that the petitioner had availed four opportunities to produce his evidence and in two of such dates (the last in the chain) he was cautioned that such opportunities granted to him at his request shall be that last one, but still on the day when his evidence was closed in terms of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. 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 petitioner were squarely fell within the mischief of the provisions ibid and his evidence was rightly closed by the trial court. As far as the argument that at least his statement should have been recorded, suffice it to say that the eventu ality in which it should be done has been elaborated in the latest verdict of this Court (2014 SCMR 637). From the record it does not transpire if the petitioner was present on the day when his evidence was closed and/or he asked the court to be examined; this has never been the case of the petitioner throughout the proceedings of his case at any stage; as there is no ground set out in the first memo of appeal or in the revision petition.'
It was further held that:- '2. ... Be that as it may, once the case is fixed by the Court for recording the eviden ce of the party , it is the direction of the court to do the needful, and the party has the obligation to adduce evidenc e without there being any fresh direction by the court, however , where the party makes a request for adjourning the matter to a further date(s) for the purpose of adducing evidence and if it fails to do so, for such date(s), the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. can attract, especially in the circumstances when adequate opportunities on the request of the party has been availed and caution is also issued on one of such a date(s), as being the last opportunity(ies).'
Recently , while affirming the above said view, the Apex Court of country in a judgment reported as Moon Enterpriser CNG Station, Rawalpindi v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited through General Manager , Rawalpindi and another ( 2020 SCMR 300 ) has invariably and vividly further held that:- '4. ........................... It is unfortunate that the prevailing pattern in the conduct of litigation in the Lower Courts of Pakistan is heavily permeated with adjournments which stretch, what would otherwise be a quick trial, into a lengthy , expensive time-consuming and frustrating process both for the litigant and the judicial system. While some adjournments are the consequences of force majeure, most are not. To cater for the later and to discourage misuse, the C.P.C. through Order XVII, Rule 3 has provided the Court with a curse of action that checks such abuse.'
In the said judgment, it was further held:- '6. A bare reading of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. and case law cited above clearly shows that for Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. to apply and the right of a party to produce evidence to be closed, the following conditions must have been met:- i. at the request of a party to the suit for the purpose of adducing evidence, time must have been granted with a specific warning that such opportunity will be the last and failure to adduce evidence would lead to closure of the right to produce evidence; and ii. the same party on the date which was fixed as last opportunity fails to produce its evidence.
In our view it is important for the purpose of maintaining the confidence of the litigants in the court systems and the presiding officers that where last opportu nity to produce evidence is granted and the party has been warned of consequences, the court must enforce its order unfailingly and unscrupulously without exception. Such order would in our opinion not only put the system back on track and reaffirm the majesty of the law but also put a check on the trend of seeking multiple adjournments on frivolous grounds to prolong and delay proceedings without any valid or legitimate rhyme or reason. Where the Court has passed an order granting the last opportunity , it has not only passed a judicial order but also made a promise to the parties to the lis that no further adjournments will be granted for any reason. The Court must enforce its order and honor its promise. There is absolutely no room or choice to do anything else. The order to close the right to produce evidence must automatically follow failure to produce evidence despite last opportunity coupled with a warning. The trend of granting (Akhri Mouqa) then (Qatai Akhri Mouqa) and then (Qatai Qatai Akhri Mouqa) make a mockery of the provisions of law and those responsible to interpret and implement it. Such practices must be discontinued, forthwith.'
4. In addition to the above, Rule 1 of Order , XVII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is much clear on the subject and if the same is followed and implemented in stricto sensu, the uncalled for adjournments can easily be curtailed. For ready reference, the said provision is reproduced infra:-
1. Court may grant time and adjourn hearing.-- (1) The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit.
Costs of adjournment.--(2) In every such case the Court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit, and may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the costs occasioned by the adjournment: Provided that, when the hearing of evidence has once begun, the hearing of the suit shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.'
5. Having said that and dilated upon the facts of the case, it is further observed that in order to streamline the cases and restore the trust and faith on the judicial system, of the masses, all the stake-holders, around whom this process evolves i.e. the Advocates, Bar Associations, ADAs/DDAs/legal advisors, representing the official departments and the Judicial Officers, have to play their part vigilantly so that the law must be implemented and uncalled for adjournments must not be obtained/granted, because generations and generations pass/take their last breath but the cases don't meet their ultimate end. This phenomenon can only be overcome by joining hands, playing our roles in positive way and making fair advice to the litigants instead of telling them the tricks to linger on the matters and cause agony to the rival party and vice versa as well as the society , which otherwise deteriorates the trust and faith of the public at large on the judicial system and this culminates in taking law in their own hands by the masses, which creates anomalous situation and multifariousness of litigation on criminal and civil sides.
6. Apart from the above, the constitutional petition is not maintainable agains t revisional order , passed with jurisdiction as has been held in judgments reported as Mian Muhammad Hafiz, etc. Vs. Aziz Ahmad, etc. 1980 SCMR 557, Muhammad Khan and 6 others Vs. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 12 others 1991 SCMR 970 and Muhammad Yousaf Vs. Manzoor Ahmad and another PLD 2006 Lahore 738 .
7. In view of the above discussion and observations, the constitution petition in hand comes to naught and stands dismissed with no order as to the costs.