' Ahmad Hassan Shah, petitioner, has filed this writ petition, praying that order dated 1-9-1987 passed by Civil Judge, Shujabad, closing down his rebuttal evidence, and the order of learned Additional District Judge, dated 7-3-1988 maintaining aforesaid order be quashed and the Trial Court may be directed to record his evidence.
2. The petitioner brought a suit for declaration against the respondent on 14-12-1981, wherein issues were struck on 4-12-1982 and he closed his affirmative evidence on 23-4-1985. The defendants (respondents Nos. 3 and 4) closed their evidence on 7-5-1986. Thereafter the case was fixed for a number of times for recording petitioner's evidence in rebuttal but with no progress. The petitioner was granted last opportunity for the purpose, fixing the date as 1-9-1987, subject to payment of costs.
3. On 1-9-1987, repeated calls were made but nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. At 4th call an application was submitted on his behalf praying for adjournment saying that as his son had a snake bite, therefore he had left for his house. At this, the learned Civil Judge having observed that this was the last opportunity for petitioner's evidence, that he had not paid the cost; and that neither the application for adjournment was supported by any affidavit nor any medical certificate was appended with the application, therefore, he was obliged to close the evidence of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached learned Additional District Judge for getting aforesaid order revised. Learned Additional District Judge dismissed petitioner's revision on the ground that no sufficient reason for adjournment or for non-production of evidence had been shown. Being still dissatisfied with this order, the instant Constitutional petition has been filed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. He stated that medical certificate showing that the petitioner's son had a snake bite was produced before the learned Additional District Judge as is apparent from the memo. of revision. It is no doubt mentioned that certificate is attached with the memo. of revision but I am not satisfied that any such certificate was really produced before the revisional Court because neither any arguments based on such certificate appear to have been addressed nor the counsel for the petitioner has filed any affidavit in this Court saying that he argued this point but the learned revisional Court failed to consider and dispose of the objection in its impugned order. I am, therefore, sanguine that both the Courts below were justified in passing the impugned orders. On legal plane, it may be pointed out that the impugned orders have not been shown to be suffering from lack of jurisdiction. Learned counsel has referred me to PLD 1957 Lahore 70, but his case proceeded on materially different facts and has got no bearing whatsoever on the case in hand. Above all the suit is still pending and the petitioner would be having remedy in shape of appeal for getting his grievance, if any, redressed from appellate/revisional Court in case his suit is dismissed, therefore, this Constitution petition is not maintainable.
5. For the reasons given above this writ petition is dismissed in limine.