IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY, J---This is plaintiff's revision petition against order dated 8-5-1994 of learned Additional District Judge, Jhelum, dismissing his appeal against order dated 17-2-1992 of the learned Civil Judge, Jhelum, whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed after closing his evidence under Order XVII, Rule.3, C.P.C.
2. The petitioner and 13 others who are related to petitioner through his brother (since deceased), filed Civil Suit No.173/90 on 23-5-1990 praying for a declaration to the effect that property bearing Plot No.B-I-2359 (old) present No.B.I. 1391/1 with a room constructed of Khasra Nos.3702 and 3703 measuring 12 Kanals, 60 Square Ft. Situate in the revenue estate of Piran, Gheb, Municipal Committee, Jhelum and had lawfully been transferred to the plaintiffs and its transfer to defendants as agricultural land was illegal, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority. The plaintiffs claimed that they were owners in possession of the suit land.
3. The defendants resisted the suit, inter alia, on the grounds that the suit land was agricultural and the same was lawfully transferred to them; that they were in possession of the same, that the matter had earlier gone to the level of High Court whose verdict was in their favour; and that if any document was relied upon by the plaintiffs, the same would be forged one.
4. The first Court framed the following issues on 29-4-1991:-.
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property? OPP
(2) Whether the allotment in favour of Khushi Muhammad is illegal, without jurisdiction, void and ineffective upon the plaintiffs' rights? OPP
(3) Whether the value of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction has incorrectly been given, if so, what is the correct valuation? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their words and conduct to bring this suit? OPD
(6) Whether the suit is mala fide and as such the defendants are entitled to get special costs?
(7) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(8) Relief.
5. The plaintiffs were called upon to adduce evidence and the case was set for 25-6-1991 for the said purpose. The plaintiffs sought adjournment which was granted and the matter was postponed to 29-9-1991, and then to 10-11-1991 and thereafter to 1-12-1991. No evidence was adduced in the Court and last opportunity was allowed to them for the purpose and hearing adjourned to 14-12- 1991. On this date, out of 14 plaintiffs' 13 persons withdrew from the contest leaving the present petitioner in the field. Thereafter, three more opportunities were given to the plaintiff and on his failure to produce evidence, his evidence was closed under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. And the suit was dismissed on 17-2-1992.
6. The plaintiff went in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17-2-1992 of the learned Civil Judge, Jhelum, but the learned Additional District Judge did not come to his rescue and dismissed the appeal on 8-5-1994 saying that Order XXVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Was directly attracted to the case in hand and the learned trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order.
Resultantly, the present revision petition was filed in this Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued the following grounds in support of the petition:--
(i) That the learned trial Court proceeded with the case hurriedly and sufficient opportunity was not given to the plaintiff who was misled by the conduct of the co-plaintiffs.
(ii) That all the relevant documents were annexed with the plaint and the learned trial Court ought to have examined those and decided the suit on merits.
However, no precedent was cited in support of this contention.
8. Learned counsel for the defendants/respondents has contended that the plaintiff was given six opportunities and thus the plaintiff was given sufficient opportunities and the first Court was justified in closing the evidence and the suit was rightly dismissed.
9. The record has been seen in the light of submissions made at the bar. Issues in this case were framed on 29-4-1991 and the plaintiffs were called upon to adduce evidence on 25-6-1991 but they failed to produce evidence. When all the plaintiffs held together, they availed of three further opportunities without adducing any evidence. Thirteen of the plaintiffs who claimed half of the suit property hung up the gloves on 14-12-1991 leaving the petitioner in the arena to fight it out all alone.
Thereafter, the plaintiff was given three more chances to produce his evidence, but all went a begging any response from the plaintiff. On the last date of hearing plaintiff too was not present. If no other parole evidence was forthcoming, the plaintiff himself could have entered the witness-box and testified in his favour, but that also was not done. The plaintiff's contention that he was misled by the co-plaintiffs who were conducting the case, appears to be an afterthought since the evidence was not closed due to non-production of evidence on those dates when all 14 plaintiffs were in the contest. The plaintiff has no explanation as to his failure to adduce evidence when he himself was looking after the case. The plaintiff was given sufficient opportunity and his failure to produce evidence was rightly met with closing his evidence by invoking provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C.
10. Another submission was that the learned first Court concluded the hearing hurriedly. The learned trial Court gave ten months, after framing of issues, to the plaintiff for production of evidence. The proceedings in the suit were thus not rushed through in a hasty manner. This, as a matter of fact, was an expeditious disposal. An expeditious hearing of civil suits is most desirable, salutary and welcome phenomenon. People must be looking forward to the day when civil suits would be decided in months or years instead of the excruciating grind which creeps on for decades and consumes generations in the process. The grievance of the petitioner regarding expeditious disposal of the case is totally misconceived.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the learned trial Court ought 9 have itself looked into documents annexed with the plaint and then decide the case on merits. This is pure and simple sophistry. Pleadings are not evidence, and a case is not proved by mere filing of a plaint and documents.
It was held in Taj Muhammad v. Raza Haider and another (1993 M LD 2450) which is as under:-- " ....According to settled law pleadings are not the evidence in the case and the case has to be decided on pleadings to establish their truthfulness."
Similarly it was held in Baldia Shahpur Saddar through Chairman, District Sargodha v. Government of the Punjab through District Collector, Sargodha and another (1993 M LD 930) which is as under:-- "It is an established principle of law that in a civil suit, a case is to be decided on the basis of evidence. If the documents have not been proved and produced in evidence, the learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to look into these documents and rely thereupon for deciding the lis.
Consequently, the learned trial Court was legally justified in not taking into consideration the documents being appended within the plaint which had not been produced in evidence. "
12. The order of the learned first Court closing evidence of the petitioner and dismissing his suit as well as of the learned Appellate Court dismissing the appeal, is therefore, upheld and the petition is dismissed.