| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLG 3036 1990 SLD 3036 = 1990 PLD 180 |
Writ Petitions Nos.4427/ to 4429 of 1989, decided on 28th January, 1990,
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB --- Petitioner
VERSUS
Mst. ZENAT SHAHEEN and 2 others --- Respondents
Law:
Section:
This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.4427/89, 4428/89 and 4429/89 as common questions of law and facts arise therein
2. These petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arise out of pending suits, filed by the respondent wherein the trial Court proceeded to close the evidence of the petitioner on 11th January, 1989. This order was upheld by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad who dismissed the revision petitions riled by him on 17th May, 1989.
The facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions are that respondent No.1 riled two suits for declaration claiming to be owner in possession of lands in dispute situate in Chak No.279/RB, Tehsil and District Faisalabad and also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering in her ownership and possession. The suits were contested by the petitioner by filing written statements which led to the framing of the relevant issues by the trial Court on 7th March, 1987. The evidence of respondent No.1 was concluded on 5th January, 1988 where after the case was adjourned to 25th February, 1988 for the evidence of the petitioner. However, neither on that date nor on the subsequent dates, i.e. 16th May, 1988 and 21 st September, 1988 any evidence was produced and the case was adjourned on the request of the petitioner to 16th November, 1988. This day was declared to be a public holiday on account of General Elections and, therefore ,the case was taken up, on 20 th November, 1988 by the learned trial Court. On that date, it was observed that no evidence was present, and the case, on the request of the petitioner, was adjourned to 11th January, 1989. Again no evidence was forthcoming on that day and the trial Court proceeded to close the evidence of the petitioner and fixed the case for arguments. In the meanwhile the petitioner challenged the order by filing revisions which were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad.