WALAYAT HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF

This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondent, Muhammad Hanif, against the petitioner, Walayat Hussain. After the respondent (plaintiff) had produced his evidence some opportunities were given to the petitioner (defendant) to adduce his evidence in rebuttal but this was not done by him. His evidence was, therefore, closed under Order XVII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure by a Civil Judge of Lahore, who was seized of the suit and the case adjourned for arguments. Order relating to closure of evidence was challenged by the petitioner by means of civil revision filed before the District Judge, Lahore. Before the learned District Judge, it was inter alia contended by the petitioner that the order under challenge was, in fact, an order under. Order XVII, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not under Order XVII rule 3, thereof. The learned District Judge dismissed the civil revision in limine but before so doing he made the following remarks:- "Let this matter be decided in appeal, if any, in case the decision is against the petitioner."

Thereafter the learned Civil Judge heard arguments on 16th December, 1987 and continued adjourning the case from time to time till 19th July, 1988 when he decided the suit. Judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge were challenged before an Additional District Judge of Lahore but without success. Hence this civil revision.

2. It was contended, by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit was badly mishandled by the learned Civil Judge. In as much as he hurriedly closed the evidence of the petitioner but then slept over the matter for a long time and decided it after about 8 months of the hearing of arguments. It was pointed out by them that the normal period for announcing judgment, after hearing of arguments, is three months and if the case is not decided within that period arguments are required to be heard afresh. Learned counsel for the respondent could not justify the announcing of judgment by the learned Civil Judge after 8 months of .The hearing of arguments and had no objection to the remand of the case to him for fresh decision after hearing arguments again.

3. I, therefore, accept this civil revision, set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the learned lower Courts and remand the case to the learned Civil Judge with the direction that he shall hear arguments again and then decide the suit afresh in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

4. Parties shall appear before the learned Civil Judge on 29th April, 1989.