This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 30-4-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, confirming judgment and decree dated 14-7-1996 passed by Civil Judge 1st Class Sadiqabad.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for possession through pre- emption against the defendant/respondent on 16-6-1994, in which written statement was filed on 11-9-1994 and issues were framed on 21-9-1994. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for recording plaintiff/ appellant's evidence to 20-11-1994. However, no evidence was present on the said date, as such, the suit was adjourned to 15-1-1995. Similar was the position on 15-1-1995, so another adjournment was granted subject to payment of cost of Rs.25 and the matter was adjourned to 13- 3-1995. On 13-3-1995, again evidence was not in attendance, so the matter was adjourned to 30-4- 1995 subject to payment of Rs.35. The suit did not proceed further on 30-4-1995, 11-6-1995, 30-9- 1995, and 29-10-1995 as the Presiding Officer had been transferred. However, the suit was adjourned from 29-10-1995 to 11-12-1995 when again the plaintiff/appellant failed to produce any evidence and the matter was again adjourned at his request on 8-1-1996. It so happened that on the said date, the Presiding Officer was oar leave, so the suit was adjourned to 4-3-1996. Again on 4-3-1996, the plaintiff/appellant elected not to produce any evidence and requested for another adjournment and the Presiding Officer was again pleased to grant him adjournment but subject to payment of costs of Rs.40 and the suit was thus adjourned to 22-4-1996. On 22-4-1996, the Presiding Officer happened to be on leave again, so the matter was adjourned to 9-6-1996. On 9- 6-1996, the evidence was again not present and a last opportunity for producing evidence was granted and the suit was adjourned to 14-7-1996. On this date, the plaintiff/appellant again failed to produce any evidence, so the Trial Court was not left with any alternative but to close evidence and accordingly, the same was closed under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. This order dated 14-7-1996 was assailed by way of appeal, which was also heard and disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan who dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree, dated 30-4-1997. Hence this revision petition.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that although the Trial Court had granted various opportunities for producing evidence, yet out of said opportunities, on most of the dates of hearing, the Presiding Officer has not been available in the Court either on account of his transfer or casual leave, that the Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court should have granted at least one more opportunity to the plaintiff/appellant for producing evidence that law favours adjudication of matters on merits and not on technicalities. He further referred to Musa, etc. v.
Faqiria, etc. 1985 CLC 2929, Syed Tasleem Ahmad Shah v. Sajawal Khan, etc. 1985 SCM R 585, Bagh- e-Rehmat Trust v. Mr. Khalid Riaz, Proprietor Gulshan-e-Ali Colony 1985 CLC 3009 and Khawaja Ghulam Qadir v. Bagoo and 6 others 1985 CLC 227 (Azad J&K) and submitted that in view of his contentions coupled with the authorities referred above, points raised need consideration, as such appeal may be admitted for hearing.
5. A perusal of facts stated above clearly reveals that the suit for pre--emption was filed on 16-6- 1994 and issues were framed on 21-9-1994. The suit was then adjourned to 20-11-1994 for recording evidence of the plaintiff/appellant. From 20-11-1994 up to 14-7-1996, as many as 13 adjournments were granted and on none of these dates, evidence of the plaintiff/appellant was in attendance.
Out of these 13 adjournments, the presiding officer was not available either due to his transfer or on casual leave on 5 dates only, whereas he has been present in the Court on the remaining occasions. A perusal of the record shows that even on these 8 dates of hearing, evidence of the plaintiff/appellant was not present although he had been burdened with costs on as many as 3 dates of hearing. This lethargic and negligent attitude on the part of the plaintiff/appellant clearly evinces his interest in the suit. The plaintiff/appellant, it appears, kept on enjoying adjournments as long as the Trial Court kept on granting him, and felt annoyed, the moment Trial Court refused to accommodate him and showed him any further indulgence while closing evidence on 14-7-1996.
The record is absolutely silent in disclosing any reason, as well as any cogent and reasonable cause for not producing evidence during the span of 20-11-1994 to 14-7-1996.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon 1985 CLC 2929 which shows that in the said case at least on two occasions evidence of the defendant was present. Similarly in 1985 SCM R 585 an adjournment sought by the defendant and granted on the basis of no objection of the plaintiff was not considered to be an adjournment to defendant at his request and as such, it was held that provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Could not be pressed into service. Similarly the facts reported in 1985 CLC 3009 and 1986 CLC 227 (Azad J&K) are not identical to the facts in hand as such the said authorities are also not applicable to the case under discussion.
7. The net result of above discussion is that both the orders passed by the Courts below, are unexceptionable and do not call for any interference. Resultantly, appeal is devoid of any force and is dismissed in limine.