' The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents/defendants Nos.7 and 8 from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of land shows as C, H, D, E and B in the plan attached with the application. The suit was filed on 8-4-1989. Issues were framed on 9-9-1990 and the suit was adjourned for evidence of the plaintiffs/petitioners for 20-11-1990. On the said date the plaintiffs' evidence was not present and the suit was adjourned to 2-2-1991 subject to payment of Rs, 30 as costs. On the date so fixed the evidence of the plaintiff again was not present and the hearing was adjourned to 4-4-1991 subject to payment of Rs,50 as costs. On 4-4-1991 the plaintiffs evidence was present. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, however, stated that he would produce the documentary evidence as also one witness whose presence could not be secured due to his sickness. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs stated that he would require another adjournment for production of the documents and the witness aforesaid. The Court, however, did not record the evidence of the plaintiffs, present in the Court, and adjourned the case to 27-6-1991 subject to payment of further costs. The costs earlier awarded were paid. On 27-6-1991 an application was filed in Court for seeking adjournment on the ground that Mst. Akbar Jan plaintiff No,1 whose statement was required to be recorded in evidence could not present on that date due to her sickness. The hearing was adjourned to 5-10-1991. It is note-worthy that the contesting defendants had not objected to the adjournment of the hearing on 4-4-1991 and 27-6-1991.
2. On 5-10-1991 another request was made for adjournment of the case but the same was disallowed and the trial Court closed the evidence of the plaintiffs under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C.
And proceeded to dismiss the suit leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal against the said order and decree was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi on 4-4-1995. The appellate Court while dismissing the appeal observed:--- "From perusal of record the conduct of the appellants is evident it appears that appellants have no evidence to support their claim and as such they were repeatedly failed to produce evidence in spite of imposing costs." (The errors if any are not mine).
' Respondents Nos.1 to 6 are pro forma respondents. No relief has been claimed against them.
Respondent No,9 has also nothing to do with the present petition, and therefore, this petition is proposed to be disposed of without securing their presence.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the original file.
The learned counsel for defendants Nos.7 and 8 before the trial Court had not objected to the grant of adjournments to the plaintiffs on 4-4-1991 and 27-6-1991 and had accepted the costs. I am surprised as to why the trial Court did not record the evidence of the plaintiffs on 4-4-1991 even though partially present. The relief of perpetual injunction has been claimed on the basis of assumed title in the disputed property which, according to the learned counsel for both the parties, is very valuable. The dismissal of the suit, in the present case, amounts to depriving the plaintiffs valuable rights in the property and as such I am of the view that the plaintiffs should not be knocked out on technical grounds. The appellate Court failed to apply its mind and the trial Court exercised its discretion in an irregular manner and as such, the impugned decree passed by Civil Judge 1st Class Rawalpindi on 5-10-1991 and the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, dated 4-4-1995 are set aside subject to the payment of Rs,2,000 as costs to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants before production of the evidence in the trial Court.
4. The trial Court may grant two opportunities to the plaintiffs to produce their evidence but it is ordered that the plaintiffs shall conclude their evidence within a period of three weeks from the first date of hearing before the trial Court on which date both the parties appear.
5. The trial Court is further directed to dispose of the suit before the end of 1995.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 18-9-1995.