Find a Lawyer

Civil Suit No.271 of 1976 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.1218 and 1225 of 1985, decided on 16th September 1985.

‑‑‑O.XVI, R.1‑‑List of witnesses, non‑submission of‑‑Effect‑‑Parties allowed to lead evidence and ordered to file list of witnesses within seven days‑‑No list of witnesses submitted by party‑‑Non‑submission of list of witnesses, held, would not entitle defaulting party to summon witnesses‑‑Summoning witnesses in absence of list of witness was refused by High Court in original Civil Jurisdiction.

Faizuddin for Plaintiff.

Nisarally for Defendants Nos.1 to 7.

S.M. Muslim Naqvi for Defendant No.8.

Ali Ahmed Tariq for Defendants Nos.9 and 10.

These are two applications filed by Mr. Faizuddin, learned counsel for the plaintiff under Order XVI, rules 2 and 3 read with section 151, C.P.C. In so far as the official witnesss that are sought to be summoned for production of official records, no objection is raised by the learned counsel for the defendants. I am also of the view that these applications to such extent should be granted. In so far as the other witnesses namely Shaikh Ehsan Elahi as far as Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1225 of 1985 is concerned, and Syed Mohsin Imam and Asghar Ali in so far as Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1218 of 1985 is concerned, Mr. Nisarally, learned counsel for defendants Nos.1 to 7, raises objection that no list of witnesses had been earlier filed, which included their names.

Mr. Faizuddin supports the application is so far as private witnesses are concerned, on the basis of two orders passed in the suit. First, learned counsel for the plaintiff referred to the order, dated 30‑4‑1984, according to which, for the reasons mentioned in the said order, it was directed that the suit should proceed de novo and the evidence be recorded afresh. This part of the order by itself did not entitle any party to add any more witnesses to their previous list of witnesses. However, in para. 2 of the said order, dated 30‑4‑1984 it was observed that the parties may lead further evidence and it was ordered that the parties may file documents and list of witnesses within seven days of the passing of that order, dated 30‑4‑1984. Admittedly no list of witnesses has been filed by Mr. Faizuddin after the order, dated 30‑4‑1984. In the circumstances, no help can be taken from th order, dated 30‑4‑1984.

Mr. Faizuddin, learned counsel for the plaintiff then referred to my order, dated 13‑3‑1985, which reads as follows:‑

"Statement of plaintiff (Exh.7‑P.W.1) partly recorded. For want of time, by consent case is adjourned to 8‑4‑1985 for further evidence. Before the next date, the two learned counsel will carry out admission and denial of the documents on 25‑3‑1985 at 1 p.m. before the Superintendent of the Branch."

According to the learned counsel certain documents have been denied by the learned counsel for defendants Nos.1 to 7 and this fact couple with the order, dated 13‑3‑1985 entitles the plaintiff to add to th number of witnesses. I do not agree. In so far as private witnessed are concerned, the order, dated 13‑3‑1985 did not grant any permission, expressly or impliedly, to any party to summon any further witnessed whose names had not been given in the list of witnesses.

The two applications, Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.1225 of 1985 and 1218 of lV85 are granted to the extent of official witnesses, who are required to produce the relevant record. The request for symmoning private witnesses is rejected. Civil Miscellaneous Applications 1218 of 1985 and 1225 of 1985 stand disposed of.

A. A. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.