' The relevant facts for the decision of this writ petition are that petitioners and Ghaus Bakhsh purchased land from one Muhammad Muzaffar. The respondents filed a suit to pre-empt the sale.
The vendees initially contested the suit, which was fixed for 30-5-1982 for their evidence. When Ghaus Bakhsh respondent No,4, one of the vendees and their learned counsel made a statement conceding the superior right of the pre-emptor. The trial Court recorded the statement on 30-5- 1982 and proceeded to decree the suit vide judgment and decree dated 1-6-1982. The petitioners proceeded to file an application under section 12 (2) of C.P.C. It was alleged that the decree is collusive secured through fraud and under-hand means. The respondents contested this application. The trial Court framed the following issues:- "(1) Whether the petitioner is estopped to bring this petition on account of his conduct? OPP.
' Whether the petition is barred by time? OPR.
' Whether the decree was passed on consent of the parties, if so its effect? OPR..
' Whether the decree dated 1-6-1982 is the result of fraud, misrepresentation and forgery, if so its effect? OPP.
Relief."
2. The trial Court posted this application for evidence to 30-5-1985. It was made clear to the petitioners that since this matter is hanging for a pretty long time so they should ensure that complete evidence is produced on the said date. They were warned that no further adjournment shall be allowed. It appears from the order dated 30-5-1985 that neither any witness was in attendance nor summoned. However, there was request for adjournment which was disallowed and as a result thereof the application was dismissed. The petitioners assailed this order through revision petition in the Court of District Judge, who proceeded to reject the same vide judgment dated 1-7-1985.
' These circumstances gave rise to the present Constitutional petition. The same was admitted to hearing and notice issued to the respondents. Respondent No,3 has alone appeared and contested this petition.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition has argued that since 30-5-1985 was not fixed for evidence at the request of the petitioners, therefore, the evidence could not be closed and the order is illegal. Learned counsel in this behalf has placed reliance on the cases of Abdul Shakoor v. Abdul Rasool (PLD 1963 (W.P.) Karachi 356), Maulvi Abdul Aziz Khan v. Mst. Shah Jahan Begum and 2 others (PLD 1971 SC 434) and Muhammad Munir and others v. Muhammad Shafiq (1983 CLC 2404). On the other hand learned counsel for the contesting respondent has argued that no Constitutional petition is competent against an order passed on a petition under section 115, C.P.C. It is argued that the petitioners are disentitled to any discretionary relief in view of delaying tactics adopted by them in ,he trial Court. It is explained that the order that no further opportunity shall be granted was not only passed in presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners but he was asked to note the order. This way the order was accepted and petitioners now cannot find fault with the same. It is maintained that since the petitioners failed to furnish any justification warranting adjournment, therefore, the trial Court rightly closed their side. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred 'to the cases of Manzoor Hussain Shah and 15 others v. Allah Bachaya Khan and 5 others (1986 CLC 1705) and Muhammad Sadiq and others v. Shakela Jamil (1985 CLC 1813).
5. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of both the sides and gone through the precedent cases. The order dated 31-3-1985 clearly indicates that the petitioners were put on their guard, still they did not care to summon the witnesses or even to secure their presence. The order is fully justified. It is neither perverse nor arbitrary. In face of the order dated 31-3-1985 there should have been very strong reasons to adourn the application for evidence of the petitioners but on the other hand, there was absolutely no justification put forward by the petitioners. Therefore, the discretion was rightly exercised and there is nothing to interfere in this Constitutional jurisdiction. In similar circumstances the order was not interfered in R.F.A in the case of Muhammad Siddique and others.
5. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent has also referred to various interim orders, which also clearly show that petitioners have been prosecuting the matter in most careless and lethargic manner. Therefore the trial Court was fully justified to make the production of evidence the responsibility of the petitioner&
6. The result is that I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.