RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID, J. -- This petition is tiled to challenge the order dated 23.7.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sargodha whereby he closed the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XVII, Rule 3, CPC. The petitioner tiled a revision petition against that order, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha vide his order dated 18.5.1999; hence this petition is tiled to challenge the order of Courts below on the ground that dispute between the parties should he settled on merits after recording evidence and that the penal provisions contained in Order XVI, Rule 3, CPC should be sparingly used.
2. It is contended that penal provisions were not attracted because the Parties had tiled cases against each other, which were consolidated and the trial proceeded on the consolidated issues.
3. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the learned Civil Judge had closed the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff on 23.7.1998 after giving numerous opportunities at the request of the petitioner/plaintiff. Last opportunity was given on payment of Rs.50/- vide order dated 17.4.1998 and the case was fixed for 25.5.1998- for evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff. On that date also the case was adjourned at the request made to that effect and the matter was once again fixed for evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff for 23.7:1998. On that date also the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff was not present nor any reasonable cause was shown for the absence of witnesses. The learned Civil Judge thereupon 'invoked the provisions contained in Order XVII, Rule 3, CPC and closed the evidence of petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant was directed to adduce his evidence. Earlier to the aforesaid date, the petitioner/plaintiff had obtained many adjournments for over one year.
4. The Revisional Court also considered the material placed on record and came to the conclusion that the learned Civil Judge had rightly passed the order dated 23.7.1998 as the petitioner/plaintiff had failed to produce his evidence on several occasions.
5. It follows from the above that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings on the question of fact that petitioner/plaintiff having been given numerous opportunities with a warning by giving him last opportunity to adduce his evidence, but nothing was done by him and as such provisions contained in Order XVII, Rule 3, CPC were invoked to close his evidence. It is the cardinal principle of law that a litigant should be vigilant while conducting a case. In the instant case facts mentioned above clearly reveal that petitioner/plaintiff was not only indolent but also negligent to examine his evidence at the trial. The orders passed by the learned Courts below do not suffer from any latent or patent legal defect so as to call for interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed in limine.