' PARVEZ AHMAD, J.---The appellant through this R.F.A. Has challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 17-5-1995 by virtue of which the evidence of the appellant/defendant was closed under Order XVII, rule 3 of C.P.C. And the suit for recovery of Rs,10,00,000 instituted by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant was decreed.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that present respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs,10,00,000 with the averments that both the parties were known to each other and the present appellant/defendant on account of some emergency took a loan of Rs,10,00,000 with the promise to repay it by 31-5-1993 on demand. The appellant/ defendant also executed a promissory note and receipt dated 15-2-1992 in this behalf. The respondent on 31-5-1993 contacted the appellant for the receipt of the amount but it transpired that the appellant had shifted his residence. The appellant then contacted the appellant at his new address but the payment of the amount was not made to him, hence the above said suit. The appellant/ defendant contested the suit and the learned trial Court, from the divergent pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues on 20- 7-1994:--
(1) Whether this suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary objections Nos,1 to 3 of the written statement? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs,10,00,000.00 on the basis of receipt and pronote enunciated in the plaint? OPP
(3) Relief.
' After the completion of the evidence of the plaintiff on 17-11-1994, the case was adjourned to 25-1- 1995, firstly, for evidence of the defendant and finally on account of failure of the defendant to produce his evidence, his evidence was closed under Order XVII, rule 3 of C.P.C. On 17-5-1995 and resultantly the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent was decreed in his favour, hence this appeal by the appellant/defendant.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the material made available before this Court.
' The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no sufficient opportunity for production of evidence was given to the appellant. It is submitted that for the first time the case was fixed on 14-12-1994 and on 14-12-1994 it was adjourned to 25-1-1995 and then to 14-3-1995 and then to 15-4-1994 and then for 17-5-1995 when his evidence was closed under Order XVII, rule 3 of C.P.C. It is added that the order of the learned trial Court is harsh and unjustified.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the appellant was provided sufficient opportunities to lead his evidence but he failed to avail benefit of the same.
It is added that the appellant never produced in evidence any of the witnesses on any date of hearing fixed for this purpose; that the appellant did not summon any of the witnesses through the process of the Court and all the adjournments were allowed to the appellant at his request. It is added that the appellant on that day, as per para. No,1 of his grounds of appeal, was leading a procession being a political worker and as such did not ,appear before the Court and also did not produce his evidence, therefore, his appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. The scanning of the record reveals that the civil suit was fixed for evidence of the appellant/defendant for the first time on 14-12-1994. The defendant did not produce his evidence.
None of the witnesses was summoned by him for this date it was he who made a request to the Court for adjournment and the suit was adjourned to 25-1-1995. On 25-1-1995 it was adjourned to 14-3-1995. On 14-3-1995 at the request of the appellant the case was again adjourned to 15-4-1995.
Even on this date neither the appellant nor any of his witnesses was present. There is nothing on record that any witness was summoned by him through the process of the Court. Similar is the situation on 16-4-1995 and on this date also the adjournment was sought by the appellant and he was given one more opportunity for production of his evidence on 17-5-1995. On 17-5-1995 neither any of the witness as per record was summoned through the process of the Court nor any witness was present before the Court. The appellant B himself was also not present before the Court. The appellant as per para. No,1 of grounds of appeal on the day when his evidence was closed was leading a procession and did not bother to appear before the Court. This was the priority adopted by the appellant for the conduct of the civil suit before the competent Court of law and this conduct of the appellant is not appreciable in any respect as such disentitles him to have relief by the exercise of discretion for grant of adjournment in his favour, as such the learned trial Court rightly did not allow any further opportunity and closed his evidence.
6. Apart from this situation, there is nothing on record that on any date the Presiding Officer of the Court was on leave or any other reason the case had been adjourned. Record further reveals that the appellant was given sufficient opportunity for the production of his evidence but he failed to produce his evidence, therefore, the trial Court was left with no option but to invoke the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3 of C.P.C. In this behalf, we seek guidance from the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases reported as 1998 SCM R 1067 and PLD 1997 SC 73.
' In view of the above discussion, we do not find any scope for interference in the judgment dated 31-5-1993 of the learned trial Court, therefore, we dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.