1. ' Facts of the case out of which this civil revision has arisen are that Abdul Majid petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs,19,800 against Nadir All respondent on the basis of the allegations that respondent received an amount of Rs,19,800 from the plaintiff for the purpose of execution of a contract business but subsequently he did neither return the profit nor the amount referred to above and ultimately vide agreement dated 5-2-1983 the respondent agreed that he shall pay the amount in instalments at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month w.e.f. March 1983 but subsequently he has refused to return the amount, therefore, the plaintiff may be granted a decree for payment of the amount. Of Rs,19,800. This suit has been contested by the respondent on the ground that the suit is not maintainable inasmuch as it should have been a suit for rendition of accounts. However, he has admitted in para. {URDU TEXT}} of the written statement that he did execute the agreement dated 5-2-1983 in pursuance whereof he agreed that he will pay an amount of Rs,17,300 to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month and in this manner he has already paid an amount of Rs,7,000 but as he is not issuing the receipts to him, therefore, he has stopped paying the balance instalments and in case the plaintiff agrees to issue the receipts he is ready to pay the balance amount in instalments. Learned trial Court after framing of various issues in the case, set down the case for leading of evidence of the plaintiff on 9-7-1985, on which date learned counsel for the plaintiff was not available, therefore, the case was adjourned for evidence of the plaintiff to 22-7- 1985. On this date also the case was adjourned for effecting a compromise between the parties to 8-9-1985. However, it was directed by the learned Civil Court that in the alternate the plaintiff shall produce his evidence on the next date of hearing. As the learned Civil Judge was on casual leave on that date, the case was again adjourned to 14-10-1985. Therefore, the case was twice adjourned on the request of the parties for compromise but the compromise could not be arrived at between the parties. On 23-1-1986, the learned Civil Judge adjourned the case to 5-4-1986 on payment of Rs, 30 as costs for recording of the evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not produce his evidence even on that date and resultantly on his request last opportunity was granted to him to produce evidence on 15-7-1986. On that date neither the petitioner nor his witnesses were produced, therefore, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by the learned Civil Judge vide order, dated 15-7-1986 and dismissed the suit filed by him for want of evidence. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the plaintiff who is a petitioner in this civil revision filed regular first appeal before the learned District Judge, Jhang which was dismissed vide order, dated 6-1-1987 on the ground that the learned Civil Judge has rightly closed the evidence of the plaintiff and hence has rightly dismissed his suit for want of proof. These two judgments and decrees have been challenged in this civil revision by the plaintiff of the suit.
2. ' This case was listed for final hearing for today. Notice was issued to the respondent to appear in the Court which has been served upon him through affixure. He, however, has not appeared today and, therefore, he is proceeded against ex parte.
3. ' Abdul Majid has appeared in person and has argued that in view of the admission contained in the written statement, the suit could not have been dismissed at least to the extent of Rs,10,300 liability to pay whereof had been accepted by the respondent, even if, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by the learned trial Court. He has further argued that the learned trial Court has illegally closed the evidence of the plaintiff.
4. ' I have considered the arguments addressed by the petitioner in person and have also gone through the record of the case. I find that in spite of several opportunities granted to the petitioner, he did not produce his evidence. Consequently, the evidence was rightly closed by the learned trial Court in exercise of his discretion which discretion has not been interfered with by the learned First Appellate Court. Consequently, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the closure of evidence passed by the learned trial Court which has been upheld by the learned First Appellate Court in exercise of my discretionary revisional jurisdiction. However, I find that in the written statement, the defendant-respondent has admitted that he is ready to pay the amount of Rs,10,300 in instalments in case the plaintiff is ready to issue receipts for the said payment. The provisions of order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. Reads as under:--- "Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary tp the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the Court may, notwithstanding such default, proceed to decide the suit forthwith."
5. ' A bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions clearly shows that even if the evidence of the parties is 'closed, the case has to be decided by the Court on the basis of the material on record.
6. Written statement filed by the respondent has been attested on oath by him and the liability of Rs,10,300 having been admitted, learned trial Court should have decreed the suit at least to the extent of payment of Rs,10,300 in instalments agreed to between the parties at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month, as per agreement dated 5-2-1983 but the learned trial Court has failed to take notice of the admission contained in the written statement, made by the respondent and, therefore, has committed a serious error of law by dismissing the suit in toto. The order passed by the learned First Appellate Court also suffers from the same infirmity. Resultantly, I hold that both the Courts below in dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner in toto have exercised the jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. Resultantly, this civil revision is partly accepted. The suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent is decreed to the extent of Rs,10,300 which shall be paid by the respondent to the plaintiff in monthly instalments as per admission against a receipt which shall be furnished by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.