This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-4-1993, by which the learned Additional District Judge, Nankana Sahib, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 15-4-1992, whereby a learned Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib had dismissed her suit after closing her evidence under Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C.
2. The plaintiff-petitioner had instituted a suit against the defendant-- respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib, for seeking a declaration to the effect that she was owner in possession of the disputed property and the entries of the Revenue Record in favour of her opponent were against law and facts. She claimed her title on the basis of its purchase by her late husband Ali Muhammad some ten years prior to the institution of the suit, whereafter he had allegedly raised construction thereon, consisting of two rooms, a bathroom and boundary walls.
She also sought a declaration for perpetual injunction, seeking to restrain her opponent from interfering in her possession as successor of the original vendee.
3. The suit was resisted by the defendant-respondent and on the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed a number of issues. The suit reached the stage of evidence but the plaintiff- petitioner could not produce any evidence despite availing of some opportunities and eventually her suit was dismissed, after the closure of her evidence. She took recourse to the appellate Court against the decision of the trial Court but there too she remained unsuccessful, hence this revision.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner is that the day on which the suit of his client was dismissed for non-production of evidence, the case did not fmd mention in the cause list of the trial Court and for that reason neither she nor her counsel could put in appearance. In support of his contention, the learned counsel refers to the contents of certified photostat copy of the cause list (Annexure `D').
5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent submits that the plaintiff- petitioner and her counsel had full knowledge of the date of hearing on which her suit had been dismissed after the closure of her evidence and the copy of the cause list (Annex-`D') does not relate to the Court which had disposed of the suit.
6. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the photostat/certified copy of the cause list (Annex. `D'), pertaining to 15-4-1992. Its perusal indicates that the suit titled `Mst. Nawab Bibi v. Haji Muhammad Amin' was not mentioned therein. This being so, the plaintiff-petitioner and her counsel were not expected to appear in the trial Court on 15-4-1992 for production of evidence and as such the question of closure of her evidence did not arise. The civil revision is, therefore, accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the case is now entrusted to Mr. Ahmad Jamal Kashif, Civil Judge 1st Class, Nankana Sahib, to whom the suit titled `Haji Muhammad Amin v. Haji Muhammad Tufail' in respect of the same property pending in the Court of Mr. Nasrullah Ranjha, Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib, shall also stand transferred. The transferee Court shall consolidate both the suits and dispose them of in accordance with law, within a period of three months, under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of the High Court.