Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this civil revision are that the petitioner filed a declaratory suit which was contested by the respondent, issues were framed on 28-7-2000 and 29-9-2000 was fixed for petitioner's evidence. Evidence of the petitioner was not present on the said date and at the instance of his counsel an adjournment was granted. Thereafter eleven adjournments were granted for producing evidence and on four occasions the plaintiff was warned that it would be final opportunity. On three dates cost was also imposed on the petitioner for not producing evidence. All the aforesaid eleven adjournments were granted by the trial Court at the instance of the petitioner's counsel and ultimately his evidence was closed on 9-8-2001, and his suit was dismissed.
2. Petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Khanewal on 6-2--2002.
3. The aforesaid orders of the trial Court and the learned District Judge, ate assailed in this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard.
5. Provisions of Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C. Are permissive and discretionary. Record of trial Court indicated that petitioner had acted contumaciously as despite repeated opportunities, four warnings of last opportunities and imposition of cost thrice he failed to produce his evidence.
6. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case it cannot be deemed that discretion was exercised by the learned trial Court arbitrarily in invoking penal provisions of Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C.
As there was no evidence on record, suit was rightly dismissed for want of evidence by the learned trial Court.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge, whereby appeal against judgment/decree of the trial Court was dismissed shows that it is entirely reasonable and does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity.
8. Interference by way of revision with decisions regarding matters which are within the discretion of the subordinate Courts is not warranted as it amounts to pre-empting the discretion of the subordinate Court. Moreover, section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against irregular exercise, non-exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction and not against conclusions of law or fact not involving question of jurisdiction.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is hereby dismissed in limine.