' The facts out of which this civil revision has arisen are that the petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration against the respondents contending therein that the land comprising Khasra Nos.262 to 267 measuring 96-3/4 Kanals situate at Shahpur Saddar, District Sargdoha, is on lease with the petitioner which has been granted to him by respndent No,1, and respondent No,2 has illegally interfered with the possession of the petitioner and user thereof, and, further that the respondents may be restrained from putting on auction the trees/garden situated at the land in dispute.
Respondent No,1 did not appear in the suit and, hence, was proceeded against ex parte. It has been contested by respondent No,2 on the ground that the land in question is in possession of the respondent since long and it belongs to it. The trees/garden has been planted on the said land and benefit thereof is being derived by respondent No,2, hence the petitioner-plaintiff has no right to claim declaration sought for and to restrain, the respondent No,2 from selling the trees and derive benefit from the trees of the garden. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court settled following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file this suit? O.P.D.
(2) Whether the . plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and injunction prayed for? O.P.P.
(3) Relief. ' and fixed the case for evidence of tfie petitioner. After adjourning the case for eight times and giving last opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence, on 11-5-1991, the learned trial Court proceeded to close the petitioner's evidence inasmuch as the evidence was not produced without any lawful reason and justification even on 11-5-1991. Consequently, the suit was dismissed for want of evidence. Aggrieved of this judgment and 'decree of dismissal of the suit passed on the basis of closure of petitioner's evidence, an appeal was filed by the petitioner which has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sargodha vide judgment and decree dated 28-11-1992. These two judgments and decree have been challenged in this Civil Revision.
2. Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that certain documents were tendered with the plaint, even if the evidence was closed, the same could have been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while deciding the suit and therefore, as material before the Court was not considered by the learned trial Court while dismissing the suit, the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court is erroneous in law and the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court also suffered from the same infirmity. Learned counsel has further contended that as it is a case of statutory body, more concession and indulgence should have been shown to it and more time should have been granted by the learned trial Court to produce evidence. Hence, according to the learned counsel, both the judgments and decree are erroneous in law.
3. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record. Argument of the learned counsel to the effect that unproved document which was not part of 'the evidence in the case, could have been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while deciding the lis is misconceived and is not based upon any legal plane. It is an established principle of law that in a civil suit, a case is to be decided on the basis of evidence. If the documents have not been proved and produced in evidence, the learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to look into these documents and rely thereupon for deciding the lis. Consequently, the learned trial Court was legally justified in not taking into consideration the documents being appended within the plaint which had not been produced in evidence. Argument of the learned counsel to the effect that the petitioner being a statutory body, more indulgence should have been shown is also misconceived and is based upon wrong notion of the correct legal position. A statutory body cannot be treated differently than an ordinary litigant. It is rather the duty of the statutory body to be more careful in pursuing their cases particularly when the dispute of a title regarding valuable public property is to be determined by a Court of law. Negligence on the part of the officials of the statutory body is to be viewed with more seriousness as in the recent past it has been noticed that the cases of the public authorities, statutory bodies and of Government are being negligently prosecuted and as a result whereof the said authorities and hence public-at-large is suffering irreparable loss. It is high time that a serious notice of this negligent attitude of such officials is taken and punitive/disciplinary action is taken against those who are responsible for the negligent prosecution of the case, as a result whereof the same have not succeeded in Courts of law. In view of the above, in case the officials of the petitioner were negligent in prosecuting the case, it could not be a valid ground for interference with the judgments and decree rendered by the Courts below. At any rate, it will be a fit case for proceeding against the officials who are responsible for the negligent prosecution of the case in hand. It is expected that the petitioner shall proceed against the persons/officials in accordance with law, who are responsible for not prosecuting the case diligently. Resultantly, I see no force in this Civil Revision, the same is dismissed in limine. Copy of this order shall be sent to Chief Secretary to the Province of the Punjab, so that the same is circulated amongst all the Heads of Departments and statutory bodies. 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.