ALLAH DITTA and others vs Hafiz ZAHOOR AHMED and another

1. ' Civil revision petition is filed by the successors of the original plaintiff Noor Ahmad, from the judgment decree dated 28-6-1990 of Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, passed in Civil Appeal No,49/14 of 1989, affirming those of the trial Court dated 28-11-1989, closing plaintiffs evidence under. Order XVII, rule 3, Civil P.C. And dismissing their suit for want of proof. It arose from a civil suit brought by plaintiff Noor Ahmad against Mst. Fazlan, and Zahoor Ahmad defendants 1 and 2 to avoid registered gift-deed dated 12-2-1978, executed by Zahoor Ahmad in favour of Mst.

2. Fazlan, and to have it declared that he was owner in possession of the land in suit on the basis of a donation evidenced by unregistered deed dated 15-10-1977.

3. ' 147 Kanals, 12 Marlas of agricultural land situate at Mauza Goth Ameen of Tehsil Liaqatpur was owned by Zahoor Ahmad. Mst. Fazlan was wedded to him as his wife. They had no issue. By deed registered on 12-2-1978, Zahoor Ahmad donated above piece of land to his wife Mst. Fazlan. Noor Ahmad was brother of Zahoor Ahmad. He claimed that Zahoor Ahmad had gifted 3/4th share in the above land to him by a deed in writing on 15-10-1977, and, to that extent, he was its owner in possession. Mst. Fazlan defended the suit, and, denied donation by Zahoor Ahmad to Noor Ahmad She said that land in suit was already gifted to her and, the deed of gift relied upon in the plaint was a fake document. Zahoor Ahmad neither supported his brother Noor Ahmad nor his wife Mst.

4. Fazlan. Instead, he himself claimed ownership of the land in suit. Original plaintiff, and Mst. Fazlan defendant No,1 died during the trial of the suit. Their successors were impleaded on record.

5. ' Issues were settled on 30-1-1985, and the suit postponed for plaintiffs evidence. Thereafter, suit suffered several agonising adjournments approximately numbering eleven or twelve. Despite that, plaintiffs gave no evidence. At last, came the final stroke from the trial Court which disgusted of the plaintiffs' procrastination, and delaying tactics applied Order XVII, rule 3, and closed their evidence.

6. Some of the adjournments were subjected to payment of costs and some treated as final opportunity but all to no material avail. As the burden of proof in regard to the alleged donation lay upon the plaintiffs who gave no evidence to discharge the burden, their suit was dismissed for want of proof. Court diary indicating the number of adjournments, their purpose, and the steps if any taken by the plaintiffs to enforce attendance of witnesses was not annexed to the petition for civil revision. To avoid possible chance of injustice, record from the trial Court was urgently requisitioned. I have looked into it. It is replete with nauseating number of adjournments, some without real justification for them. It is evident from the record that despite enough time and opportunity., plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence to prove their case. In this view, the Court was not at their mercy. It had enough powers to enforce judicial discipline to effectively arrest further delay.

7. Application of Order XVII, rule 3 to the facts of the case was neither improper nor illegal. On the other hand, rule was applied justly and there could be no legitimate grievance on that score. There is no scope for interference with exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below. Revision petition is, accordingly, without merits. It is dismissed in limine. Records be returned.