Briefly stated the facts are that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants/respondents Nos.3 to 8 on 9-6-1992. The suit was resisted by the defendants/respondents Nos.3 to 8 by filing written statement on 9-9-1992. The trial Court framed issues on 17-3-1993. Thereafter, the plaintiff/petitioner was granted adjournments till 23-10-1999 for producing affirmative evidence. The plaintiff/petitioner closed his affirmative evidence finally on 17- 5-2000. The defendants/respondents Nos.3 to 8 produced their evidence on 6-7-2000. The matter was then adjourned for evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner in rebuttal. Instead of producing said evidence, he (plaintiff/petitioner) moved an application on 22-7-2000 for getting the thumb- impression compared from Finger Print Expert. The said application was resisted by the defendants/respondents Nos.3 to 8. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the said application vide order dated 30-9-2000 which was assailed by the plaintiff/petitioner by filing a revision petition, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan vide order dated 11-10-2000. Hence the instant writ petition.
2.Preliminary arguments have been heard and record perused.
3.It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner that impugned order dated 11- 10-2000 suffers from inherent defect as it has been held by the learned A.D.J. That the revision petition filed suffers from legal defect inasmuch as notice required under Order 4S, Rule 3, C.P.C.
Had not been issued prior to filing the said revision petition. He argues than provisions of Order 43, Rule 3, C.P.C. Are not applicable to revision petition and the same applies to appeals against interim orders, that as such the impugned order dated 11-10-2000 is patently illegal. He further argued that the trial Court as well as revisional Court have declined the relief on the ground that application had- been moved with a considerable delay. He submitted that delay per se is no ground to dislodge the plaintiff/petitioner while seeking the relief claimed by him and placed reliance upon Zarab A.I Shah v. Yousaf A.I Shah and 9 others (1992 SCM R 1778) and Muhammad Sharif v. Town Committee Shahkot and another (1983 CLC 1990). He further contended that revisional Court has relied upon (PLD 1983 SC 693) but the said authority is not applicable to the facts in hand. He thus, submitted that writ petition be admitted for regular hearing.
4. Admittedly the suit for specific performance was filed on 9-.6-1992 which was resisted by the defendants/respondents Nos.3 to 8 vide written statement filed on 9-9-1992. The execution of agreement has been denied by the defendants/respondents Nos.3 to 8 from the very inception as is evident from the written statement. It was specifically alleged by the defendants/respondents Nos.3 to 8 that alleged agreement does not contain any thumb-impression of defendant/respondent No.3. In spite of such clear cut denial regarding the execution of agreement the plaintifff/petitioner did not deem 4 proper to get his thumb-impression compared from any Finger Print Expert. He was provided a period of 7 years for producing his evidence and even then he did not deem it proper to make such request. It is after the evidence of the defendants/respondents stood concluded and plaintiff/petitioner was required to adduce evidence in rebuttal that he thought it proper to move instant application. The trial Court has disallowed his said request vide order dated 30-9-2000. The said order has been confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide order dated 11-10-2000.
5. There is no doubt that provisions of Order 43, Rule 3, C.P.C. Are not applicable to revision filed under section 115, C.P.C. This observation of the revisional Court is not based on correct appreciation of legal proposition and as such the impugned order dated 11-10-2000 to that extent is not tenable. However, the other reasonings given by the Courts below are, based on factual position and it appears that the instant application has been, moved with ulterior motive just to prolong the proceedings which art pending since 1992. The authority (1992 SCM R 1778) does not come to the rescue of the petitioner, as in the said authority both the parties agreed that .The further probe could be made for resolving the controversy and it was as a result of their consent that further evidence was allowed to be brought on record. So far as (1983 CLC 980) is concerned, the matter was disposed with the consent of the parties and even otherwise said application had not been moved after a delay of 8 years, as is in the instant case.
6. It is evident from the facts stated above, that there is no jurisdictional defect in the impugned order, as such writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed in limine.