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.
Writ Petition No. 1580 of 1986, decided on 28th April, 1986.
‑‑‑O.XVI, R.1 & O.XVIII, Rr. 2 & 4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Examination of witness present in Court‑‑Witness brought by party in Court, held, could not be refused to be examined by Court simply for reason test name of such witness was not mentioned in list of witnesses‑Order of Trial Court refusing to examine witness present in Court was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.
Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Ilyas and 3 others P L D 1980 Lah. 495 ref.
Shahid Caleem Mahmood for Petitioner.
Hidayatullah for Respondent No.2.
In this writ petition, it is complained that the petitioner's witness who was present in Court was not examined for the reason that his name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses. This is vide, order the learned trial Court, dated 24‑2‑1986. It is contended that that is against the law. Reliance is placed on Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Ilyas and 3 others P L D 1980 Lah. 495.
2. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.2 states that: he has no objection if the petitioner's Witness is examined He submits that the petition may be allowed and the learned trial Court may be directed to conclude the hearing of the suit for maintenance of a minor filed by the respondent No. 2.
3. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The order of the learned trial Court, dated 24‑2‑1986 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is stated by‑ the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has to produce the witness who was not earlier allowed and has to get the statement of the petitioner recorded before the learned trial Court and that is all. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states that he has already produced evidence on behalf of the respondent. Only one, day would be required for reconciliation efforts. In this view of the matter, it appears that hardly there will be two hearings necessary for the disposal of the case. Even if more are required, the case can be finished within a short span of time. Therefore, it is directed that the learned trial Court shall finally dispose of the case within the next two months. The petition is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
H.B.T. ‑‑‑‑‑ Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer