MUNIR A.'SHAIKH, J.---This judgment will also dispose of RFA 192/92 as both of them have been directed against the same judgment and decree.
2. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree. dated 30-5-1992 through which the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore decreed the suit filed by the respondents for specific performance of agreement of sale.
3. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in both the appeals in the written statement denied execution of the agreement of sale. The appellant in the connected RFA No.192/92 took a plea that the vendor had gifted her a portion of the property prior to the execution of agreement of sale, therefore, the same did not affect her rights in the said portion of the property. The suit was filed in July, 1979. In January, 1992 a direction was issued by this Court to the trial Court to decide the suit before 31-5-1992.
4. We need not dilate upon the discussion on the merits of the case as for the reason to follow the appeal is liable to be accepted on the short ground that the appellants were not given proper opportunity to produce evidence. On 14-5-1992 the evidence of the plaintiffs was concluded. The case was fixed for evidence of the appellants on 18-5-1992. Some evidence was recorded and the next date fixed was 21-5-1992 on which date an expert witness from Forensic Science Laboratory was examined as D.W.3 who made a request that he may be allowed two days time to prepare the enlarged photo copies of the disputed documents and submit his report. The trial Court declined to grant him time on the ground that since the Court was to decide the case as per direction issued by this Court within the time fixed, therefore, he could do the needful on the same day which according to the witness was not possible. On the same date i.e. 21-5-1992 the appellants made an application for summoning the Town Planner. Another application was also made for allowing them to examine Syed Mubarak Ali Shah and Muhammad Akbar as witnesses one of whom had gone to Saudi Arabia to perform Haj and the other to Rawalpindi. The said two applications were also rejected on the sole ground that the time left at the disposal of the Court to decide the suit was too short to allow the appellants to examine the said witnesses.
5. The main issue in the suit was as regards execution of agreement of sale. The judgment of the trial Court mainly rests on the opinion of the expert witness produced by the respondents. The expert witness (D.W.3) produced by the appellants was not allowed fair and reasonable opportunity to examine the disputed documents and compare the disputed signatures of the vendor on the agreement of sale with his admitted signatures after getting enlarged photos of the same and to prepare his report. The appellants were also not allowed to examine Syed Mubarak Ali Shah and Muhammad Akbar, as witnesses and to summon the Town Planner on the ground of pausity of time. In our view theappellants have been condemned unheard as no sufficient and fair opportunity was given to them to produce the evidence to rebut the evidence of the respondents/plaintiffs. If the time was short, it was not the fault of the appellants as the evidence of the respondents/plaintiffs was concluded on 14-5-1992 and the trial Court should have requested for extension of time bringing to the notice of this Court, its direction to decide the case before the date fixed. It may be mentioned here that the discretion and jurisdiction of the trial Court vested under Order 17 and other provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to grant adjournment to a party if satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to do so were not in any manner curtailed or abridged by a direction given by this Court on administrative side to decide the case before the date fixed because it is merely meant to regulate the proceedings of the Court and not to divest it from the judicial power conferred by the Statute. In a given case even if the trial Court was not in a position to decide the suit within the time granted by this Court and the suit was decided after the date fixed by this Court neither the validity of proceedings taken nor the judgment and decree passed after the date fixed would be adversely affected. .
6. For the foregoing reasons the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable. This appeal is accepted. Judgment and decree dated 30-5-1992 is set aside and the suit remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal. The appellants shall be given opportunity to examine D.W.3 who shall be allowed to take photos of the documents present on. the record, the Town Planner, Syed Mubarak Ali Shah and Muhammad Akbar as witnesses. The attendance of D.W.3, Syed Mubarak Ali and Muhammad Akbar in the Court shall be caused by the appellants at their own responsibility and the Town Planner shall be summoned if requested by the appellants.
7. The suit is withdrawn from the Court of Mr. Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, and transferred to the Court of Syed Nasir Ali Shah, Civil Judge before which Court the parties shall appear on 5-6-1993. The trial Court shall decide the suit within three months from the said date and if on account of any unavoidable circumstances it was not possible the Court may seek extension in time. There will be no order as to costs.