Precisely , the appellant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 600,000/- under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the respondent. on the basis of promissory note and receipt dated 07.07.2009.
After acceptance of application for leave to defend, the appellant filed written statement and controverted the averments of plaint. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issues on 19.05.201 1 and suit was fixed for evidence of the appellant but despite availing numerous opportunities including last and final opportunities with costs, he failed to produce his evidence except evidence of summoned witness i.e. notary public as P,W.1 on 19.07.2012; therefore, the learned trial Court closed his right to lead evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the, CPC and dismissed the suit for want of evidence vide impugned judgment and decree dated 04.01.2013; hence, the instant appeal.
2. Heard.
3. Considering the arguments and perusing the record, made available, as well as going through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below , it becomes diaphanous that the suit under discussion was instituted on 04.01.2010 and after framing of issues on 19.05.201 1 so many adjournments were granted to the appellant but on each and every date he requested for further time, which seems that he had no evidence to produce in support of his claim. Even last and final opportunity was granted with cost 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 producing his evidence learned counsel sought further time, which shows appellant's rigid and adama nt attitude towards the orders of the Court. The above picture of affairs makes it vivid that how the appellant pursued his case and shows his disobedience 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 evidence of the party , it is the direction of the Court to do the needful, and the party has the obligation to adduce evidence 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 discou rage 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.'
So far the recording of one P.W. is concerned, that was a summoned witness and even he was notary public, who allegedly wrote the promissory note and receipt; thus, without product-ion of further evidence, on the solitary statement of the said witness case could not be decided.
4. In view of the above discussion and observations, while placing reliance on the judgments supra, the appeal in hand comes to naught and stands dismissed with no order as to the costs.