ULNERZADI Versus AHMAD HAYAT

This revision petition by Mst. Umarzadi alias Shezadi is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Sargodha, dated 14th of October, 1985 whereby an. appeal preferred by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, 1st Class, Shahpur on 15th of May, 1985 decreeing the suit of the petitioner was accepted and the suit was remanded to the trial Court with a direction to give only one opportunity to the respondents to produce their evidence. and thereafter decide the suit afresh in accordance with law.

2. On 31st of March, 1984 Mst. Umarzadi alias Shezadi petitioner instituted a suit for a declaration that she and Mst. Nawabzadi Alam Khatoon, respondent No. 7 were owners in possession of land measuring 415 Kanals ‑and 15 Marlas situate in Mauza Kalra Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha, that the mutation of sale No. 47, dated 19‑6‑1970 in respect thereof attested in favour of Ahmad Hayat, respondent No.l was illegal and without consideration and that the partition proceedings taken in respect thereof were void and for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her possession. 61st. Nawabzadi Alam Khatoon respondent No. 7 in her written statement admitted the suit. The other respondents, however in their written statements contested the suit.

3. On 30th of July, 1984 the trial Court framed issues on the pleadings of the parties and adjourned the suit to 31st of October 1984 for the evidence of the parties. On 31st of October, 1984 learned counsel for the petitioner tendered some documents in hip statement and closed the evidence of the petitioner reserving a right to adduce oral evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. The suit was adjourned for the evidence of the respondents to 19th of December. 1984. On this date, the Court was closed on account of the Referendum in the country. The suit came up for proper orders on 20th December. 1984. On this date, the suit was adjourned to 27th of February, 1985 for the evidence of the respondents. On this date a request for adjournment was made on behalf of the respondents for their evidence. The request was acceded to and the suit was adjourned to 15th of May, 1985. On this date again the evidence of the respondents was not available and since their counsel also was not present, a request for another adjournment was made: The learned trial Court declined to grant an adjournment and on the same date decreed the suit of the petitioner.

4. Feeling aggrieved, respondents Nos.l and 3 preferred an appeal which was heard by the learned District Judge, Sargodha who vide his judgment, dated 14th of October, 1985 accepted the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court remanded the suit to it for its decision afresh after allowing the respondent one opportunity to produce their evidence. Hence this revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is true that on 27th of February, 1985, the suit was adjourned at the request of the respondents to 15th of May, 1985 for their evidence. Nevertheless, in view of the large area of the land involved in the suit, the respondents in the interest of justice ought to have been granted one more opportunity, especially in view of the fact that their counsel was not available on that date. The learned, trial Court hastened to decide the suit on that very day without affording an opportunity to the counsel for the respondents to appear and address his arguments on the merits of the case.

6. In the circumstances, the learned lower appellate Court was; justified in remanding the suit on payment of Rs.400 as costs by the; respondents and directing the learned trial Court to decide it afresh; after giving only one opportunity to the respondents to produce their evidence. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed leaving] the parties to bear their own costs.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that some time limit may be fixed for the final disposal of the suit by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. The learned "trial Court is, therefore, directed to finally dispose of the suit within six months.

H.B.T./U‑20/I Revision Petition dismissed/Order accordingly