' On 20-10-1988 Raja Abdul Rauf petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he was owner of land measuring two kanals situate in Chak No,11, Adalatabad, Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat, against Raja Hameed Ullah Khan respondent, in the Court of Civil Judge Mandi Baha-ud-Din. As a consequential relief, he prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his possession of the suit property. The suit was resisted. Issues were framed. The case was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner. He did not produce evidence on several dates. So, his evidence was closed and the suit was dismissed on 21-4-1990. The appeal filed by him against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat on 12-6-1990, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed without any justification. Furthermore, the suit of the plaintiff was consolidated with another suit and consolidated issues were framed, so, the trial Court could not have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for want of evidence.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with him. No doubt, two suits were consolidated but the fact remains that the proceedings were being conducted in the suit of the plaintiff. After framing the issues, the petitioner/plaintiff was required to lead evidence. The case was fixed for evidence on 24-4-1989.
The plaintiff failed to produce evidence. So, on his request the case was adjourned subject to the payment of cost of Rs,25 to 5-12-1989. On 5-12-1989, the plaintiff failed to produce his evidence and the case was adjourned subject to the payment of Rs,50 as cost for 11-3-1990. On 11-3-1990 neither the evidence of the plaintiff was present nor did he pay the cost of Rs,50, yet on his request the case was adjourned for his evidence to 21-4-1990 subject to the payment of Rs,60 as cost. On 21-4- 1990, neither the plaintiff produced his evidence nor did he pay the cost. So, his evidence was closed and the suit was dismissed for want of his evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to lay his hand on any case-law or provision of law restraining the Court from dismissing one of the consolidated suits for want of evidence. I do not see any illegality, irregularity with the impugned judgments and decrees.
' Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision petition fails and is dismissed in limine.