By this judgment interlinked Civil Revisions Nos. 1042 and 1043 of 1990 are proposed to be disposed of.
2. Claiming to have purchased Alhamra Cinema, situate on the Mayo Road, Lahore, alongwith land, shops, fixtures, machinery, etc. for a consideration of 22 lac rupees, through an agreement dated 7-10-1973, and pleading to have paid one lac rupees as earnest money, followed by another amount of ten lac rupees afterwards, to Dr. -M. Shabir Khan of Shabir Enterprises Ltd., Gulberg, Lahore, Mehr Ghulam Dastgir, resident of 415-Civil Lines, Sargodha filed a suit on 12-11-1973 for perpetual injunction and declaration, prayer that the defendants be restrained from interfering with his peaceful possession of the property and with his business of running the cinema, as also from doing any other act that might prejudice his rights pertaining to the property. Nature of the declaration sought.was not specified, either in the prayer clause, or in the title of the suit, dated 12- i1-1973. It was however averred that as part performance of the contract of sale the plaintiff had been put in possession of the property.
3. Subsequently, on 4-12-1973, a suit for possession through specific performance of agreement of sale and rendition of accounts was instituted by the plaintiff against the same defendants. Yet another suit was filed, on 30-7-1974, for a declaration that the plaintiff had made payment for purchasing non judicial stamp paper of value of Rs.1,10,000 for execution of conveyance of sale. and he was entitled to refund of the amount. As a consequential relief a prayer was made that the defendants be perpetually restrained from claiming or receiving the amount and from hampering the proceedings pending before the Collector for refund of the stamp duty. It appears that the defendants also had brought a civil action for permanent injunction, as also for cancellation of the document; and the proceedings of the said suit had been consolidated with those of Mehr Ghulam Dastgir's suit dated 30-7-1974. Records of the defendants' suit aforesaid have not been placed before this Court. Mehr Ghulam Dastgir's suit for possession through specific performance of contract of sale, as also the one for a declaration and injunction relating to refund of the stamp duty, claimed to have been paid by him, were dismissed for want of proof on 6-12-1988 by Rai Muhammad Zafar Bhatti, Additional District Judge, Lahore. It may be pointed out that the suits were earlier with some Civil Judge and on withdrawal had been entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge for disposal by the learned District Judge.
4. Applications were made by the unsuccessful plaintiff under section 144, read with Order 47, rule 1, C.P.C. for review of the orders dated 6-12-1988; and the same were rejected on 17-9-1989 by Ch. Shabbir Hussain, Additional District Judge, Lahore. Civil Revisions Nos.1042 and 1043 of 1990 have been preferred by the plaintiff, assailing the aforesaid orders, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, on 17-9-1989.
5. In the orders dated 6-12-1988 it had been observed by the learned Additional District Judge that although issues in the suits were struck several years ago, and certain issues were added afterwards, the plaintiff failed to produce his evidence in spite of having availed of countless chances. Even when on 26-6-1988 ex parte proceedings were taken against the defendants, owing to their absence, and the plaintiff was called upon to adduce his ex parte evidence, he did not avail of that `golden' opportunity, on a number of dates given from July to October 1988. The cases had been pending without any appreciable progress ever since 1973-74 and could not be permitted to linger on over an indefinite period. The plaintiff, in the opinion of the learned Additional Judge, appeared to have lost interest in the pursuit of his cause and had offered no reasonable explanation as to why over the years he had not been able to examine even a single witness. His evidence was closed under Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C., and he was non-suited as he had not substantiated his claim on the strength, of any evidence what ever.
6. Finding no justification for review of the aforesaid orders, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rai Muhammad Zafar Bhatti, his successor, Ch. Shabbir Hussain refused to review and set aside the orders dated 6-12-1988, passed by his predecessor. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner the learned lower Court has not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly an important development, namely, adjournments having been sought by the parties for effecting compromise. A perusal of the record reveals that only once, during long and chequered career of the litigation between the parties, they had sought an adjournment. (on 13-6-79), for making an effort to arrive at a settlement outside the court. On the very next date, that was 14-7-79, it was stated that such efforts had turned out to be abortive. If the plaintiff had taken part in the general election held in the year 1988, he could not make his involvement in the affair as an excuse for his liability to adduce evidence over along time. The learned counsel has referred to the previous conduct of the petitioner in maintaining that he had never been an indolent litigant, but has been unable to point out the instances of diligence or vigilance on his part in the past. If he is a resident of Sargodha, and the case is being tried at Lahore, that too would not justify any amount of slackening or negligence, on plaintiff's part, in the pursuit of his cause. True, that the property involved is very valuable and the plaintiff had paid heavy amount of court-fee in asserting his title thereto- but that is all the more reason why he was expected to have been very vigilent and active in the matter. To say that he could not afford to be careless is only an oral assertion, for practically the gentleman has been extremely indolent. I am amused to learn the learned Advocate canvassing that an opportunity ought to have been afforded to the petitioner to substantiate his cause. It was not a question of one opportunity; scores of opportunities were provided to the plaintiff for the purpose; but he did not wake up from his deep slumber. If the Court had been granting `last' opportunity to the plaintiff, on a number of occasions, it would not necessarily follow that the word had lost its meaning and it had become a routine with the Court and the order was to be treated as only a notional or meaningless direction. Actually the Court had extended increasing indulgence to the plaintiff, every time telling him that his evidence was not being closed and he was being afforded yet another chance for production of his evidence, for proof of his claim, and he should bear in mind that the next one would be the last chance. Still the plaintiff did not realize his responsibility, in his own interests, and continued to be careless, as ever.
7. The learned Addl. District Judge, who passed the impugned orders on 17-9-89, has rightly said that the plaintiff had failed to point out any date on which his witnesses were in attendance. Even if the assembly was in session, on a certain date, he could bring along his witnesses, so that their statements could be recorded, and he himself could make a statement on a subsequent date. But it was not a solitary date, on which he had committed the default. He persisted in the matter of non-production of his evidence over years together. When the plaintiff, whose cause it was, and a very valuable one according to him, was himself not interested in pursuing and proving it, the Court had no option but to close his evidence, after having been tired of adjourning the case repeatedly (for the plaintiffs evidence). The learned Addl. District Judge, therefore, rightly refused to interfere with the order of his predecessor and review it.
8. Plaintiff-petitioner's counsel has not been able to show as to what material irregularity or illegality had been committed by the lower Court in making the impugned order, or as to how the same was the outcome of a misreading or non-reading of the material on record. It is to be borne in mind that no evidentiary material had, as yet, come on record, and the plaintiffs case was confined to his pleadings, as incorporated in the plaint. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on PLD 1989 (Lahore) 209, Shahnawaz v. Amir Muhammad etc., 1987 CLC 1261 (Lahore), Municipal Corporation, Lahore, v. Abdul Hameed etc., and 1983 CLC 2437 (Lahore), Faiz Bakhsh v.
District Judge, Multan and others, in maintaining that the plaintiff-petitioner had to blame none but himself for dismissal of his suit. Reliance is also placed on 1980 SCM R 711 Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v.
Chairman, Screening Committee, Lahore. A judgment or judicial order is not to be reviewed merely because a different view could have been taken. The Court may resort to this rare phenomenon only when the alleged error is evident on the face of it, and for establishing it no evidence is required to be led and no elaborate arguments need be addressed. A void order may be struck down, if it is manifestly illegal, non-existent or untenable in the eye of law.
9. Finding no force, whatever, in the revision petitions, the same are hereby dismissed with costs.