' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-6-2001 passed by Civil Judge, Gujranwala, whereby a suit of the appellant for specific performance of the contract dated 3-4-1995 was dismissed.
2. In a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 3-4-1995, filed by the appellant, the trial Court after receiving the written statement from the respondents-defendants framed the issues and fixed the case for evidence of the appellant on 19-6-2001, when the impugned order was passed by the Civil Judge who proceeded to close the evidence of the appellant under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. And suit of the appellant was dismissed.
3. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that on 19-6-2001 when the impugned order dismissing the suit of the appellant was passed the witnesses of the plaintiff- appellant appeared in Court at about 9 a.m. But the learned Civil Judge was not presiding over the Court. The reader of the Court returned the witnesses of the appellant-plaintiff with the reason that it is not clear whether the learned Civil Judge will come or not. But, later on at 12 Noon the learned Civil Judge called the case of the appellant/plaintiff in the presence of the plaintiff/appellant and his counsel but instead of giving further opportunity closed the evidence of the appellant-plaintiff.
The learned counsel for the appellant also produced the affidavit of the learned counsel, namely, Javed Akhtar Sheikh to substantiate his above contentions.
4. The case was fixed on 26-5-2001 before the trial Court. The evidence of the plaintiff was not present. The case was adjourned on the request of the counsel for the evidence of the plaintiff- appellant for 19-6-2001. A perusal of the order dated 19-6-2001 reveals that only the counsel for the parties were present. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that the plaintiff alongwith witnesses, namely, Mukhtar Ahmad, Muhammad Yasin and Muhammad Malik were present on 19-6-2001 when the evidence of the plaintiff was closed under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. Is not borne out from the record. The case was adjourned on the request of the plaintiff- appellant on 26-5-2001 for 19-6-2001. In this view of the matter, the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. Were attracted in the present case. The trial Court has rightly closed the evidence of the plaintiff-appellant vide the impugned order, dated 19-6-2001 invoking the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. And dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
' Resultantly, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.