' The petitioner had filed a suit on 24404979. On 13-114979 the trial Court had rejected his plaint. He went up in appeal against this order and the appellate Court vide its order, dated 12-11-1981, remanded the case for re-decision on merits.
2. On the return of the file, the learned Civil Judge fixed 13-10-1982 for plaintiff/petitioner's evidence.
On this date of hearing the case was transferred to another Civil Judge who issued notice to the parties for their appearance on 18-11-1982. On this date of hearing two witnesses of the plaintiff/petitioner's appeared but they did not bring the official record with the help of which they were to testify. The case was, therefore, adjourned to 22-12-1982. On this date of hearing the Presiding Officer was on leave and proceedings were adjourned to 12-2-1983. On this date of hearing the plaintiff/petitioner did not bring evidence and on his request it was adjourned to 8-3- 1983. The plaintiff/petitioner could not appear on this date of hearing. However, in the presence of the counsel for the parties the learned trial Judge proceeded to record the evidence of two official witnesses but due to their omission to bring the complete record, their statements could not be completed and the learned Civil Judge proceeded to close the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. And dismissed the suit.
3. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff/petitioner went up in appeal but the learned Additional District Judge, who dealt with it, dismissed the same as incompetent by observing that the impugned order was revisable and not appealable. Dissatisfied with his order, he brought this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents at the outset raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the writ petition to the effect that the order was revisable and the petitioner should have filed a revision instead of writ petition. In reply to this objection, the petitioner's counsel contends that he had to file this writ petition because the learned Additional District Judge had converted the appeal of his client into a revision and no second revision could. Be filed in this Court.
This. Is sufficient explanation for filing the writ petition and the preliminary objection is overruled.
5. The above resume indicates that the plaintiff-petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to lead his evidence. The suit was no doubt adjourned to 8-3-1983 on his request but if his two summoned official witnesses, who had put in appearance, did not bring the complete official record for testifying with its help, he was not to blame. The learned trial Judge instead of hurriedly closing his evidence, could direct the witnesses to bring the requisite record on the next date of hearing but he did not adopt this course. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is accepted and the impugned order is declared illegal and without lawful authority. The result is that the plaintiff-petitioner shall be competent to produce his evidence and the proceedings shall re-commence from that stage. However, he shall be given only two opportumties for this purpose and after completing his evidence and that of the respondents, the learned trial Judge, who shall be the Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, shall decide this case within a period of two months from the date the parties shall appear before him They are directed to appear on 12-12-1992.