MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J.-This revision petition arises out of a suit for possession and mandatory injunction filed by the respondent on 21.12.1985 in the civil court, Lahore. The respondent claimed that the disputed property did not form part of the property acquired by the government. Hence it had no right to obtain possession of the same.
2. The petitioner resisted the suit and on the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property ? OPP
(2) If possession of suit property is not delivered to the plaintiff then whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for alternative land measuring 10 marlas 180 Sq. Ft? OPP
(3) Whether the suit is pre-mature? If so its effect?
(4) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ?OPD
(5) Whether the suit is hit by sections 42 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to bring the suit?OPD
(7) Whether the suit land stand acquired for Rehmanpura Colony by the then Land Acquiring Authority, i.e. Land Acquisition Collector High Way? OPD.
3. After recording evidence of the parties, the trial Court decided issue No. 1,2 and 7 in favour of the respondent. Issues No.3 to 6 were decided against the petitioner/defendant. Resultantly, the suit was decreed by the trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1987. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore vide the judgment and decree dated 21.12.1988. The petitioner's learned counsel contends that the petitioner's evidence was illegally closed on 17.10.1987 under the provision of Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC. He submits that despite the petitioner's failure to produce evidence the court had the discretion to allow further opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence. He adds that there was no urgency and discretion should have been exercised in favour of the petitioner. He places reliance on the cases of NWFP Province through Collector. Dera Ismail Khan and 2 others vs, Dr. Inavatullah Khan and 2- others. 1990 CLC 1293. And Mst. Zainab Bibi alias Jania vs. Khuda Bakhsh and another. 1986 CLC 1074. He further submits that petitioner had constituted a committee which came to a positive conclusion that the disputed Khasra No.6698 was included in the land acquired by the Government. He adds that the suit was illegally instituted during the pendency of the inquiry proceedings.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent's evidence was closed on 25.1.1987 and the next date was fixed for recording evidence of the petitioner. On 25.2.1987 the petitioner's evidence was not available and an adjournment was sought.
Subsequently, the case was adjourned for 9.3.1987. Again the petitioner's evidence was not available and an adjournment was prayed for. The case was adjourned for 8.4.1987. On 8.4.1987, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned for 20.4.1987. On the said date the petitioner filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the C.P.C, for rejecting plaint on the ground that the respondent had no cause of action. The case was adjourned for 4.5.1987. On that date the application was dismissed and the case was fixed for 13.6.1987 for the petitioner's evidence. On that date the Presiding Officer was again on leave and the case was adjourned for 8.7.1987 for recording the petitioner's evidence. On the adjourned date the petitioner's evidence was not available and on the petitioner's request the case was adjourned for 17.10.1987 subject to payment of Rs.50 as cost. It was noted in the order that no further adjournment would be granted. On that date the petitioner's evidence was not available whereupon the court closed the evidence under the provision of Order 17 rule* 3 of the C.P.C. Thus, several opportunities were given to the petitioner to produce evidence but he did not avail of the same. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 22.11.1987. On that date, the petitioner's request for adjournment was turned down and after hearing the arguments, the matter was decided. He further submits that the court was not bound to decide the matter on the ame day when the petitioner's evidence was closed under Order 17, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. In this connection he places reliance on the case of Maulvi Abdul Aziz Khan vs. Mst. Shah Jehan Begum and 2 others, PLD 1971 SC 434 and Mian Ghulam Ali vs. Ali Nawas Khan (1981 Law Notes (Lahore)
507). He submits that from the year 1982 up to 1985 the respondent has been approaching the petitioner for delivering possession of the disputed property to him but after having failed to get redress he was constrained to institute the suit. Referring to the letters Ex P9, Ex P.1, ExP12 and Ex P13 written by the Land Acquisition Collector, he submits that the Collector had himself written that the respondent's land was occupied by the petitioner without acquisition and that he may be provided alternate land.
5. There is considerable force in the arguments raised by the respondent's learned counsel. After perusing the material on the record, the courts below have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs land was never acquired by the petitioner/Government but it was occupied illegally alongwith the land actually acquired. The letters written by the Land Acquisition Collector, (Ex P9 and Exs P.1 to 13) support the respondent's contention that his land was occupied without acquisition. That is why the Collector had written to the Government to provide alternate land to the respondent. The petitioner's learned counsel has not been able to point out any material irregularity on the part of the courts below or misreading or non-reading of evidence to justify interference in the concurrent findings of the courts below on issues Nos. 1, 2 and 7. The argument that the court was bound to decide the suit on the same day when the petitioner's evidence was closed has no merit .In view of the clear pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maulvi Abdul Aziz Khan vs. Mst. Shah Jahan Begum and 2 others (PLD 1971 Supreme Court 434).
After closing the evidence; the case could be decided within a reasonable time. The evidence in the present case was closed on 17.10.1987, the arguments were heard on 22.11.1987 and the matter was finally decided on 28.11.1987. The petitioner was allowed several opportunities to produce evidence but he failed to avail of the same. The petitioner was granted last opportunity for the said purpose but on the adjourned date i.e. 17.10.1987, again evidence was not produced. Under these circumstances, the court was fully justified to close the petitioner's evidence and had rightly exercised the discretion against him.
6. Resultantly, the revision petition fails and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.