ZAFAR IQBAL Versus BARKAT ALI

This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the petitioner, Sh. Zafar Iqbal, against the respondents, Barkat Ali and others. Petitioner's evidence was closed by a Civil Judge of Gujranwala, under Order XVII, rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and his suit dismissed. Petitioner went in appeal before the District Judge, Gujranwala, but in vain. Hence this civil revision.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the date on which the evidence of the petitioner was closed was not fixed at his request and, therefore, provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be invoked in his case. According to the learned counsel the case was adjourned to the said date in consequence of joint request of the parties' counsel. In this connection, reliance was placed on Muhammad Hussain and 5 others v. Akram Baig and 3 others (P L D 1988 Lahore 183), a case which has recently been decided by me.

3. Petitioner's evidence was closed on 4th December, 1986. It, was on 16th October, 1986 that the suit was adjourned to 4th December 1986 at the request of the petitioner's counsel which was not objected to by learned ' counsel for the respondents. Order passed on 16 th October, 1986, leaves no room for doubt that request for adjournment emanated from the petitioner's counsel. The fact that the respondents' counsel did not object to the adjournment sought by. the petitioner's counsel did not make it a case of request by the respondents or that of joint request. It continued to be a case of request by the petitioner and as such he could be proceeded against under Order XVII, rule of the Code of Civil Procedure. In taking this view, I am fortified by observations of the Supreme Court in Syed Tasleem Ahmad Shah v. Sajawal Khan etc, (1985 S C M R 585). As for the case of Muhammad Hussain and 5 others, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the said case there was. joint request by the parties' counsel which is not true of the case in hand. Rule laid down in the case of Muhammad Hussain and 5 others is, therefore, not attracted to the case of the petitioner.

4. It was also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 4th December, 1986 the case should have been adjourned for the B statement of the petitioner even if he was not present on the said date. It is apparent from the order passed by the learned Civil Judge that the petitioner, whose evidence was to be recorded on the said date, did not turn up and his counsel did not show sufficient cause for his absence. In the circumstances, the learned Civil Judge was not obliged to adjourn the case for the statement of the petitioner.

5. There is no merit in this civil revision, it is, accordingly, dismissed in limine..

A.A. /Z‑47/L P Revision dismissed.