1. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.---Karim Bakhsh petitioner filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief. The case was fixed for 31-7-1986 before the trial Court for recording evidence. It was adjourned to 8-9-1986. On the said date evidence of five witnesses, including the three who were present on 31-7-1986, was recorded. The petitioner wanted to produce more evidence. He requested for time. His request was turned down by order dated 8-9-1986.
2. HC sought review of the said order . The trial Court declined by order dated 20-5-1987. Thereafter he filed revision before the District Judge. That too was dismissed. As a last resort he invoked the Constitution jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. The petition was dismissed in limine by order , dated 1-6-1987. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court was bound to give time to the petitioner for further evidence, but he failed to cite any provision of law in support of his contention.
4. It was further submitted that the witness the petitioner wanted to examine was the most important to prove his case.
5. If it was so then he should have examined such a witness in the first instant rather than to leave it to the last moment. There is nothing wrong in the impugned order of the Lahore High Court.
6. Dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.