Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 177 of 1979, decided on 8th February, 1986.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20‑12-1978 in Civil Revision No. 820 of 1977 .
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑O. XVI, R. 1--Petitioner challenging production of unlisted witnesses and document‑‑Trial Court exercising discretion in favour of respondent‑plaintiff permitting him to produce required evidence‑‑Such exercise of discretion upheld by High Court in its revisional jurisdiction as not suffering from any infirmity, legal or otherwise‑‑Interference declined by Supreme Court.
Mian Muhammad Hafiz v. Aziz Ahmad etc. 1980 S C M R 557; The Australasia Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Mangora Textile Industries, Swat and others 1981 S C M R 150; Muhammad Sharif and others v. Ahmad Yar and others 1982 S C M R 1200 (1) and Naeem Engineering Corporation and others v. Government of Punjab through Secretary and another 1986 S C M R 316 rel.
A.G. Chaudhry (absent) and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 8th February, 1986.
.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 20th December, 1978, of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Civil Revision arising out of the grant of permission by the trial Court to the respondent (plaintiffs in a civil suit) to produce unlisted witnesses and documents, was dismissed.
2. It is admitted that sub‑rule (1) of rule 1 of Order XVI of C.P.C. prescribes that not later than seven days after the settlement of issues, the parties shall present in Court list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents. It is also provided under sub‑rule (2) that a party is not permitted to call witnesses other than those contained in the said list, except with the permission of the Court and after showing good cause for the omission of the said witnesses from the list; and if the Court grants such permission, it shall record reasons for so doing.
3. In this case the plaintiff wanted himself to be examined as a witness and his name was not included in the list of witnesses submitted by him in time. He also wanted to produce some documents. The trial Court exercising the discretion in favour of the plaintiff permitted him to produce the required evidence. This exercise of discretion has been upheld by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction as not suffering from any infirmity, legal or otherwise.
4. Learned counsel himself, to be fair to the respondent, cited Mian Muhammad Hafiz v. Aziz Ahmad etc. 1980 S C M R 557 and The Australia Bank. Messrs Mangora Textile Industries, Swat and others 1981 S C M R 150, which according to him support the view taken by the High Court. He has also referred to two leave granting others orders namely; Muhammad Sharif and others v. Ahmad Yar and others. 1982 S C M R1200(1) Naeem Engineering Corporation and others v. Government of Punk, through Secretary and another 1986 S C M R 316.
5. The questions in the
leave granting orders, it seems, have already been answered in the cases of Mian Muhammad Hafiz and that of The Australasia Bank Ltd support cited by the learned council which as already noted and conceded, support the view taken by the High Courts. Therefore, this petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.
M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer