' In a suit instituted by the petitioners against respondent No,1 for a declaration that the order dated 15-12-1980 passed by the Collector, Sargodha, was illegal, void, ultra vires and without lawful authority with a consequential relief against respondent No,1, where respondents Nos. 4 and 5 joined as parties later on, the learned trial Court on 13-7-1981, on the statement of the counsel for the petitioners that on that day the petitioners could not produce their evidence; the Naib- Tehsildar could not be served, on the following date the entire evidence would be produced and no further opportunity would be sought, adjourned the matter to 19-7-1981 ordering the deposit of process-fee within a day and the service to be effected by the petitioner's, On 19-7-1981 Raja Khaliq Dad, the Naib-Tehsildar in spite of service did not appear, so his presence was ordered through boilable warrants. The next date was fixed as 26-7-1981. The petitioners were directed to deposit the process-fee expenses etc. On the same day. On 26-7-1981 the learned trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioners under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. By observing that the petitioners had not produced rest of their evidence, the process-fee was not paid as to witness Khaliq Dad, Naib- Tehsildar as directed whose statement was to be recorded, there was a specific order by the learned District Judge to dispose of the case up to 30-7-1981. Being aggrieved therefrom the petitioners filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, on 14-11-1981.
Before the learned District Judge counsel for both the parties were not present but the petitioners and the respondents were present in person. It was maintained before him that the counsel for the petitioners was confined in a hospital for the last two weeks regarding which the learned District Judge observed that he had mentioned in his order that on the following date the case was to be definitely heard so if the counsel for the petitioners was not there the petitioners were supposed to have made some alternative arrangement. However, he took upon himself as to decide the case on merits whereby he observed:- "I have considered the matter involved in the case. The revision is lifeless and without any weight, so it is dismissed with costs."
2. In this writ petition an exception has been taken to this order specifically on the ground that it is not a speaking order. The learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 4 and 5, has replied that no doubt the order passed in revision appears to be a sketchy one but this cannot by itself put the petitioners on a firm footing because the basic order as passed cannot be regarded as without lawful authority. However, in view of his subsequent position this case is going to be disposed of with the consent of both the parties so as to issue a direction straightaway to the learned trial Court rather than to remand the case to the learned District Judge for reconsideration of the matter in full, in view of a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported as Wadera Dalel Khan and 7 others v. Province of West Pakistan and 6 others PLD 1970 Quetta 79. While weighing the implications of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. The learned Judges of the Division Bench observed: "It is desirable that litigants should get decision on merits in their cause. If the plaintiffs fail to comply with the order of the Court repeatedly then an action can be taken against them under the relevant provision of law. We should make it clear that extreme measures should only be taken if the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs by their conduct had made it impossible for the Court to proceed with the trial of the suit and the continuation of the proceedings was only intended to cause harassm ent to the defendants."
3. The learned trial Court was no doubt in a hurry because of the direction of the learned District Judge yet if the superior Court considers that an extreme measure is to be taken in extreme cases only, then such an observation must have its way. So, the learned trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioners to produce their evidence as to Raja Khaliq Dad, Naib-Tehsildar and any of the petitioners if he chooses to offer himself as a witness. The learned trial Court shall try to decide the case within two months. The parties are hence-ward directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 2nd February, 1984. In the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.