Instant civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-10-1979 passed by the District Judge, Bahawalpur whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 21-1- 1979 was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration against the defendant/respondent on 15-10-1977. The said suit was resisted by the defendant/respondent by filing written statement on 28-1-1978. Issues were framed on 20-3-1978 and thereafter the matter was adjourned to 2-5-1978 for recording evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner. As the evidence was not in attendance so the matter was then adjourned to 7-6-1978, 7-9-1978, 1-11-1978 and 21-1-1979.
Out of aforementioned dates, the Court was closed on account of holiday on 7-9-1978. As no evidence was present even, on 21-1-1979 so the learned trial Court invoking the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., closed the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner and finally, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 21-1-1979.
3. The plaintiff/petitioner felt aggrieved of the said judgment and filed an appeal which met the same fate as is evident from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge dated 21-10- 1979; hence, the instant civil revision.
4. Arguments have been herd and record perused.
5. The stand of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner is that the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Are not attracted in the instant case as the Court was closed on 7-9-1978 and the matter was adjourned to 1-11-1978 wherein the notices were ordered to be issued to the parties as well as their counsel, that on 1-11-1978, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner was not present and some other Advocate filed Wakalatnama on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner and requested for adjournment which was accordingly granted and the matter was adjourned to 21-1- 1979, that admittedly, the evidence was not present on 21-1-1979 but there was reasonable had plausible reason for non-attendance of the evidence and the same was illness of the plaintiff/petitioner. He; thus, submits that as there was plausible explanation for non-presence of the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner on 21-1-1979, so his evidence could not be closed under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., that the impugned order suffers from inherent defect. As such the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further contends that on similar analogy the order passed by the learned District Judge was not maintainable.
6. Conversely, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below have been supported -by the learned counsel for the defendant/respondent. .
7. A perusal of the record reveals that the suit having been filed on 15-10-1977, written statement having been filed .On 28-1-1978 and issues having been framed on 20-3-1978, the suit was adjourned for recording of evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner to 2-5-1978. Admittedly, the plaintiff/petitioner failed to adduce evidence on 2-5-1978 as well as on 7-6-1978. He also could not produce evidence even on 7-6-1978 and thereafter the matter was adjourned to 7-9-1978. Even if the date of 7-9-1978 is excluded as the Court was closed due to holiday still he was given another date of 1-11-1978 as well as 21-1-1979 for producing evidence. The plaintiff/petitioner failed to produce evidence on the aforementioned dates The trial Court granted various opportunities to produce evidence but on none of the said dates the plaintiff/petitioner chose to produce his evidence for one reason or the other. Under these circumstances the Court was not left with alternate but to invoke the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.Q. Accordingly the orders passed by the trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court do not suffer from any illegality what to speak of material irregularity. Consequently; the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.