' Messrs Iqbal Ghafoor Engineering Works filed a suit against Mst. Ghafoor Begum Soofi etc. For a declaration with respect to the suit land on the basis of adverse possession of the suit land which was contested. The petitioners failed to produce their evidence which was closed by learned Civil Judge, Lahore vide his order dated 10-6-1976 and applying Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Dismissed the suit. The appeal failed in the Court of Addl. District Judge on 15-11-1978.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the provisions of Rule 3 of Order XVII being penal in nature should be sparingly applied, in any case, there were documents on the record which could have been admitted and considered before the suit was dismissed. The second part of the argument' must be rejected inasmuch as on the record of the petition we have nothing to indicate that any documentary ipso facto admissible was filed in the record of the case of learned lower Court when it was dismissed on 10-6-1976. Furthermore counsel for the petitioner was present on the said date and there is no request on his behalf that any document on the record or in his custody be admitted in evidence. Of course the penal provisions are not to be applied harshly but scale of justice must be in balance in favour of both the parties. Leniency in favour of one party may result in harshness to the other. The order of the learned Civil Judge indicates that opportunities had been granted to the petitioners. To produce evidence and this very fact was noted by the learned appellate Court.
3.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents raised the objection that the revision petition was not competent inasmuch as there was no error of jurisdiction nor the order of the learned lower Courts was arbitrary or fanciful. The orders of the two Courts below indicate that opportunities for production of evidence were not availed of and so the discretion to close the evidence seems to have been properly exercised.
4. The revision petition though competent otherwise has no merits. It is, therefore, dismissed.