ANWAR AHMED Vs. GAUNSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are in appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which his suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are not required to be recapitulated as the same have been given in the judgments of both the Courts below. It would be suffice to mention that the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed in terms of Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as they failed to produce oral evidence and had only tendered documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and Mark A to B, which were not proved in accordance with law. Moreover, the plaintiffs themselves did not step into the witness box in support of their case.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has referred to a judgment of this Court in the case of Om Parkash v. Thana Ram and others, 2011 161 PunLR 190 to contend that the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC are penal in nature and should not be attracted without giving any warning or burdening the party with costs.