Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 8---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVII, R.3---Suit for possession---Plaintiff did not produce evidence in spite of having been given several opportunities---Even on the day fixed for evidence as last opportunity, though plaintiff was present, his counsel was not available---Plaintiff filed application for adjournment which was rejected by the Trial Court and plaintiff's right to produce evidence was closed under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. along with dismissal of suit for non-production of evidence---Appeal was also dismissed---Validity---Plaintiff failed to produce evidence despite being afforded ten opportunities, therefore, Trial Court had no option except closing the evidence and dismissing the suit---Judgments and decrees of both courts were quite rational and just---Plaintiff failed to point out any irregularity, illegality or misreading of evidence---Revision, being meritless, was dismissed. Ghulam Rasool v. Rai Ghulam Mustafa and others 1993 SCMR 2026 and Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, C and W and others v. Messrs Tahir Shoaib Rashid Shoaib 1998 CLC 1680-Pesh distinguished. Ather Rehman Khan for Petitioner. ORDER HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Imtiaz Ahmad, petitioner through this Civil Revision under section 115, C,P.C. has assailed the judgment and decree dated 28-9-2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Layyah, and the judgment and decree dated 27-1-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Layyah. Through the former judgment and decree the learned Civil Judge closed the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. and dismissed the suit of the petitioner for possession of the land for non-production of evidence. Through the latter judgment and decree the appeal of the petitioner filed against the said judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant civil revision are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession against Ghulam Muhammad and others, wherein the present respondents, namely Muhammad Bakhsh, Naseem Haider Khan and Abdul Rasheed Khan…