Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 580 of 1979, decided on 25th August, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High‑Court, dated 25‑4‑1979, in Criminal Review No. 1385 of 1978).
‑‑ O. XVI, rr. 1 & 2‑Examination of witnesses‑Leave to appeal Whether bar contained in O. XVI, rr. l & 2 relates to witnesses intended to be called through Court and not regarding witnesses brought by a party with him on date fixed for recording his evidence‑Case, held, requires, examination‑Leave to appeal granted.‑[Witness].
Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad 1lyas and others P L D 1980 Lah. 495 and Chhabba Ram v. Nathu Ram A I R 1941 Lah. 38 ref.
Ch. Hafeez Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.
.‑Leave is granted to consider whether the refusal of the learned Civil Judge to examine the witnesses whom the petitioners had brought with them in Court on the relevant date, was legally justified on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a list of witnesses after settlement of issues under Order XVI(1), C. P. C. It is argued that the bar contained in Order XVI(1) and (2) is regarding witnesses who were intended to be called through Court and not regarding those witnesses who were brought by a party with him on the date fixed for recording his evidence. He refers to A Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Ilyas and others (P L D 1980 Lah. 495). For the purpose of showing that the impugned order even otherwise was not justified reference is made in Chhabba Ram v. Nathu Ram (A I R 1941 Lah. 38). Security Rs. 2,000. The case should be fixed for hearing at an early date.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer