' The revision petition is directed against the orders dated 11-4-1980 and 29-6-81, passed respectively by Rai Muhammad Zafar Bhatti, Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, and Mr. Muhammad Afzal Sohail, Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, in the course of proceedings of a civil suit instituted by Asghar Abbas against Muhammad Ramzan and others for possession of a piece of land, measuring 2 Kanals and 3 Marlas, comprised in Khasra No, 546, Mauza Sheikhupura, and for removal of debris or `Malba' from the interior of the `Havel? Claimed to have been purchased by the plaintiff from one Manzoor Hussain, on 15-10-1969, and the defendants having been in illegal occupation and enjoyment thereof. Suit was contested by Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Nazir sons of Ch. Said Muhammad, who asserted to have exclusively been in possession of the premises for a period exceeding 60 years, ever since the time of their forefatheRs,
2. Suit was dismissed in default of appearance of the plaintiff on 3-2-1980. He made an application for restoration of the suit on 3-3-1980, under Order 9, Rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C. The application was opposed by the defendants by submitting reply on 8-11-1980.
3. Learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional D.J. Both have come to the conclusion that there was no justification for revival of the suit. The suit had actually been adjourned from 3-10-1979 to 3- 2-1980. According to Asghar Abbas plaintiff, his general attorney Irshad Hussain had appeared in the Court, alongwith his counsel, on 3-10-1979, and the next date given in the case was 3-3-1980, and when he appeared in the Court on the said date, he was surprised to know that the case had already been dismissed, a month before on 3-2-1980. Learned Courts below have mainly been influenced by the fact that Irshad Hussain was not the attorney of the plaintiff at the relevant time, nor had his presence in the proceedings been marked on 3-10-1979. He had actually tendered the power of attorney on 5-3-1981 in the Court, On 3-10-1979, presence of the counsel for the parties had been recorded.
4. It is to be noted that it is not a compulsion that names of all those who have appeared in a Court to pursue certain litigation must be stated, even in routine adjournment ordeRs, Generally the reader marks attendance of counsel for the parties, on satisfying himself that the parties arc represented alright. It is similarly not necessary for the Court or any of its officials to record presence of a party's agent or attorney. Irshad Hussain, who has appeared as a witness for the plaintiff-petitioner, states to have been present in the Court on 3-10-1979. He may be telling lies, but the possibility of there having occurred a legitimate misconception about the actual date of hearing to which the case . Had been adjourned from previous date could not entirely be ruled out.
Irshad Hussain might have noted 3-3-1980 as the next date, as is averred by him.
5. The learned Courts below are of the view that the best evidence available has been withheld. The learned Advocate, who was counsel for the plaintiff, could have made his own statement by appearing as a witness and by presenting before the Court his diary, as also his brief or file cover, to show that the case had been adjourned on 3-10-1979 to 3-3-1980, but no such effort has been made by the plaintiff-petitioner to substantiate his plea by examining the learned counsel. It is well known that learned Advocates generally avoid appearing as witnesses, probably as they themselves are in the habit of bullying witnesses of the other side and are apprehensive that when they are themselves in the witness-box, they might get the same shabby treatment, or encounter certain amount of embarrassm ent at least.
6. I find that on 3-10-1979 the case had in routine been adjourned, as the presiding officer was busy in election duty. It was then all the more reason that the reader of the Court might not have taken pains to be very meticulous in marking presence of all those who happened to be in attendance.
3-10-1979 was the date fixed for evidence of the defendants, which could not be recorded, and for the same purpose the case was adjourned to 3-2-1980. Evidently on the said date, there was no plausible reason why the plaintiff or his attorney should have opted to absent himself. He had not to adduce his evdenece and was subject to no strain. He had only to bring along his counsel for cross-examining the witnesses of the other side, if they were available for examination. Generally, even in absence of the party, the counsel takes care to come to Court; and if he is busy elsewhere, he would certainly send his clerk to make a request to the Court for accommodating him, or he will arrange for presence of another Advocate by way of proxy, so that the cause does not go by default.
7. It appears that absence of the plaintiff-petitioner from the proceedings of his civil suit on 3-2- 1980 was not intentional, and it was owing to certain confusion about the date of hearing. The plaintiff did not stand to gain anything by being negligent or intentionally erratic in noting down the correct date of hearing, on the suit having been adjourned on 3-10-1979 to a future date.
Carelessness on the part of the counsel in failing to appear in the Court in absence of his client has often been condoned.
8. There is an objection raised by the respondents that copies of all the requisite documents having not been filed alongwith the revision petition, the same cannot proceed. It has been held in 1991 SCM R 496 (Riasat Ali v. Muhammad Jaafar Khan etc,) that a Court may opt to be reasonably liberal, in appropriate cases, in the matter of failure on the part of the petitioner to file certified copies of all the documents with the revision petition and even the delay caused in the matter may be condoned, the scope of the revisional powers being vast, corresponding to a remedy of certiorari. Revisional jurisdiction, being in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction, may even be invoked by the Court suo motu. The defect pointed out by the respondents thus would not be fatal to the revision petition.
9. An immovable property of considerable value is involved. Superior Courts have always been in favour of decision of disputes on merits rather than on technical grounds. I have the feeling that cause of justice would better be served, if the suit is disposed of on merits, after the parties are enabled to lead evidence for and against their standpoint. The impugned orders are set aside and the revision petition is accepted, with, of course, no order as to costs. The case shall come up for further proceedings before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura on 18-1-1993.