' This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.4427/89, 4428/89 and 4429/89 as common questions of law and facts arise therein
2. These petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arise out of pending suits, filed by the respondent wherein the trial Court proceeded to close the evidence of the petitioner on 11th January, 1989. This order was upheld by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad who dismissed the revision petitions filed by him on 17th May, 1989.
' The facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions are that respondent No,1 filed two suits for declaration claiming to be owner in possession of lands in dispute situate in Chak No,279/RB, Tehsil and District Faisalabad and also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering in her ownership and possession. The suits were contested by the petitioner by filing written statements which led to the framing of the relevant issues by the trial Court on 7th March, 1987. The evidence of respondent No,1 was concluded on 5th January, 1988 whereafter the case was adjourned to 25th February, 1988 for the evidence of the petitioner. However, neither on that date nor on the subsequent dates, i.e, 16th May, 1988 and 21st September, 1988 any evidence was procudced and the case was adjourned on the request of the petitioner to 16th November, 1988.
This day was declared to be a public holiday on account of General Elections and, therefore,the case was taken up on 20th November, 1988 by the learned trial Court. On that date, it was observed that no evidence was present, and the case, on the request of the petitioner, was adjourned to 11th January, 1989. Again no evidence was forthcoming on that day and the trial Court proceeded to close the evidence of the petitioner and fixed the case for arguments. In the meanwhile the petitioner challenged the order by filing revisions which were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad.
3. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate-General, who has appeared along with Mr. Zaeemul Farooq, A.A.G. And Mr. Altaf Muhammad Khan, Advocate, contended that the Courts below acted illegally in closing the evidence of the petitioner on 11-1-1989 as the last date fixed in the case i.e, 16-11-1988 was declared a public holiday and 20-11-1988 on which date the case was taken up was not a date fixed by the Court and, therefore, the evidence of the petitioner could not have been closed. It was further contended that in the circumstances of the case, when valuable immovable property belonging to the State was involved, the Courts below should not have acted hastily and closed the -evidence of the petitioner and the discretion vested in them has not been exercised in a judicious manner.
' Ch. Muhammad Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that as 16th November, 1988 was declared as a public holiday, the suit was taken up for hearing, in terms of Order 17 rule 4 C.P.C., on 20-11-1988 and the trial Court could have proceeded to record the evidence which was, however, not forthcoming and the adjournment of the case to 11-1-1989 was at the request of the petitioner.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that the impugned orders are not sustainable. The order passed by the trial Court closing the evidence is laconic. The Civil Judge failed to notice that the last date of hearing fixed in the case i.e, 16th November, 1988, had been declared a public holiday and, therefore, the case was taken up on the next date as required by the provision of Order 17 rule 4 C.P.C. There is no order passed on 20th November, 1988 that the case should proceed forthwith but instead, it was adjourned by the trial Court for 11-1-1989. While closing the evidence this aspect has escaped notice of both the Courts below.
' There is even otherwise force in the contention of the learned Advocate-General that in the circumstances of the case, the refusal to adjourn the case was not warranted. It is to be noticed that at no occasions while adjourning the case either any cost was imposed by the trial Court or was it indicated that it shall be the last and final opportunity. Even on 20-11-1988 no such order was passed. In these circumstances, the Court should have examined the question of granting a final adjournment subject to payment of costs.
' In view of what has been stated above, these constitutional petitions are accepted, the impugned orders are declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioners are allowed one last and final opportunity to produce their evidence before the trial Court on 4-3-1990 subject to payment of Rs,500 as costs. The parties shall appear on 4-3-1990 before the trial Court. If no evidence is produced on the date fixed, it shall be deemed to have been closed.