This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5-3-2002 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner by Additional District Judge, Khushab, filed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Khushab dated 19-6-2001 whereby the suit of the petitioner for declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit-land comprising in Khata Nos.356 to 358, total land measuring 128 Kanals, 7 Marlas situated in Mauza Nalli Shumali, Tehsil and District Khushab, and further that respondent No.1 had no right of claim towards the said land. It was further prayed that Mutation of Gift No. 1239, dated 29-11-1993 executed in favour of respondent No.1 was against the facts and law and was outcome of fraud and. Therefore, liable to be cancelled.
2. Evidence of the petitioner was closed by invoking the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. By the learned Civil Judge and as there was nothing on the record, the suit was dismissed on 19-6-2001.
The appeal filed by the petitioner also met the same fate.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. Are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance has been placed on the case reported as Lal v. Ghulam Muhammad and another PLD 1975 Lahore 385.
4. The suit was fixed for producing the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff on 15-6-2001 when the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed and last opportunity to produce the evidence was granted to the petitioner on 19-6-2001. Previously on 11-5-2001 the petitioner was granted opportunity to produce the evidence subject to payment of costs of Rs.250. He was unable to produce the evidence on 5-5-2001. Since the case was adjourned on 15-6-2001 for 19-6-2001 on the instance of the petitioner and he failed to produce the evidence on the fixed date, the Civil Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction of closing the evidence of the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. And dismissed the suit of the petitioner. The case referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner PLD 1975 Lah. 385 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, because in the above-referred case it was noted by the High Court that on the previous date the case was not adjourned on the instance of the party against whom the order of closing the evidence was passed by the trial Court.
There is concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner based on record which cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. No irregularity or illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.