ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Civil Revision Application No.42 of 2013

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For orders on CMA No.408/2013

2. For hearing of main case

Date of hearing: 01.10.2019.

Mr. Manoj Kumar Tejwani, Advocate for applicant

Mr. Ahmed Ali Shahani, AAG

12-09-2014

O R D E R

NAZAR AKBAR J:- This Civil Revision was filed on 26.11.2013 against concurrent findings of dismissal of suit by the Court of learned 1^st Senior Civil Judge Sukkur for non-prosecution by order dated 26.03.2011 which was maintained by the trial Court when an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC was dismissed. The appeal preferred by appellant bearing Civil Misc. Appeal No.11/2012 against the order of dismissal of application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC was maintained by the first appellate court. About facts of the case, suffice is to state that plaintiff has filed first class suit No.95/2006 which was first dismissed under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC by judgment dated 28.04.2009. However, on appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.48/2009 the suit was remanded to the trial Court vide order dated 02.06.2010 in the following terms:

“Mr.Manooj Kumar Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sarfraz Akhund Advocate for the respondent No.5 waived the notice and by their consent the matter is fixed on 19.06.2010 when the appellant shall produce his entire evidence before the learned 1^st Senior Civil Judge Sukkur and no Court Motion notice shall be issued.”

2. The applicant again has failed to avail the opportunity given by the first appellate Court to get his case decided on merits. He obtained almost 14 adjournments after remand to produce evidence despite the facts that the appellant was given a specific date by the appellate Court to produce evidence before the trial Court. Even after remand the suit was again dismissed for want of evidence on 26.03.2011 and applicant again preferred an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC which was also dismissed and even appeal bearing Civil Misc. Appeal No.11/2012 against the dismissal of second application under Order IX Rue 9 CPC was dismissed by order dated 03.10.2013. The applicant on 26.11.2013 has preferred this revision against the said two orders. However it was listed before this court on 05.08.2014 with office objection and notices were issued to the respondents and from that date onward the case has been simply adjourned on almost every date of hearing without any serious efforts from the counsel for the applicant to get the instant revision application decided on merits despite the facts that according to him valuable right of his client are in jeopardized.

3. Be that as it may, today the only arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the cases have to be decided on merits instead of technicalities. In my humble view this proposition is not applicable in the case of litigant who has filed suit way back in 2006 and despite remand order and specific directions to produce evidence before the trial court has failed to produce evidence. His suit was dismissed twice for non-prosecution. No serious efforts have been made to get even this civil revision disposed of as early as possible and therefore the applicant is not entitled to any discretionary relief after 13 years of filing of his suit when the record shows that plaintiff himself has repeatedly failed to prosecute his case. It was the 15^th application for adjournment after the remand which was dismissed by the trial Court after having shown indulgence on 14^th dates. This fact has not been disputed by the counsel for the applicant. These are concurrent finding of the two courts below.

4. In view of above, I find no merit to interfere in the concurrent findings of two courts below. Therefore, this civil revision application is dismissed on merits.

JUDGE

Suleman Khan/PA