Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the legality of judgment & decree dated 24.09.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal who dismissed the suit for declaration with permanent injunction filed by the petitioner under Order XVII Rule 3, CPC for want of evidence and judgment & decree dated 25.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner .
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintif f filed suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants contending therein that the respondents are owner of the suit shop. Petitioner constructed a shop from his own sources with the permission of the respondents. According to the terms and conditions of the settlement when the petitioner would vacate the demised premises/workshop, the, respondents would pay the cost of construction. Now the respondents intend to evict the petition er as such they are liable to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner/plaintif f in accordance with oral agreement or till payment of the said amount, they should be restrained to dispossess the petitioner from the' suit property . Respondents appeared, contested the suit by filing written statement controverting the averments made in the plaint. Issues were framed on 29.01.2008 but the petitioner did not produce evidence and the learned trial Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Order XVII Rule 3, CPC dismissed the suit vide judgment & decree dated 24.09.2009. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment & decree dated 25.03.2010. Hence, this civil revision.
3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at some length and gone through the record with their able assistance.
4. Admittedly , issues were framed on 29.01.2008 and the case was adjourned for evidence of the petitioner for 31.03.2008. But despite availing numerous opportunities including the last and final opportunity with cost uptil 24.09.2009 petitioner failed to produce its evidence which contumacious non compliance of Court order invite invocation of penal provisions of order XVII Rule 3, CPC. It is duty of the Court to regulate the proceedings of the case with the object to decide the lis expeditiously and the Court if reaches the conclusion that a party to lis is deliberately avoiding to lead evidence and maliciously prolonging the matter on different unreasonable pretext, then it is well within the jurisdiction under Orde r XVII Rule 3 C.P.0 to strike down the right of such defaulting party . It is worth mentioning here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered four opport unities as sufficient for a party to produce its entire evidence in order to counter the unnecessary delay in conclusion of the trial. When the Court has passed an order , granting the last opportunity , it has not only passed a judicial order but also made a firm promise to the parties for non-granting any further adjournment. It is unflinching expectat ion of the litigant that the Court shall enforce its order in its true letter and spirit. Reliance is placed on the case s titled as Syed Tahir Hussain Mehmoodi and others v. Agha Syed Liaqat Ali and others (2014 SCMR 637) & Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer- ud-Din and others (2015 SCMR 1401 ). In a latest judgment cited as Moon Enterprises CNG Station, Rawalpindi v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelin es Limited through General Manager , Rawalpindi and another (2020 SCMR 300 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that: "6.... 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 opportunity to produce evidence- is granted and the party has been warned of the consequences, the Court must enforce its order unfailingly and unscrupulously without exception.
Such order would irk our opinion nor 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 granted 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 honour 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) made a mockery of the provisions of law and those responsible to interpret and implement it. Such practices must be discontinued, forthwith."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgments & decree passed by the learned Courts below and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect. The concurrent findings of fact are against the petitioner which do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Mst. Zaitoon Begum vs. Nazar Hussain & Another ( 2014 SCMR 1469 ).
6. In view of above, this civil revision is dismissed being devoid of any merit with no order as to cost.