Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions Nos. 628, 629 and 630 of 1978, decided on 8th September, 1985.

(Against the Judgment and Order, dated 4‑10‑1978 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision Nos. 362/364/1977.

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVI, r, Summoning of witnesses‑‑Court refusing to issue process, closed evidence and dismissed suit for recovery of money‑‑Contentions that notwithstanding late filing of list of witnesses, Court itself had been summoning witnesses and a request made to Court to summon them again could not be brushed aside on ground that list of witnesses was submitted late, and that keeping in view identity of witnesses who were required to be summoned, mostly departmental officers, passing on of responsibility of producing them entirely to plaintiff was unjustified and Court should have lent its assistance in getting process issued and served‑‑Dismissal of suit in such circumstances and for these reasons requiring further examination on legal plane and matter involved being short and purely legal one while granting leave petitions were converted into appeals and ordered to be heard within six months after service was completed.

Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing; 8th September, 1985.

‑The petitioners who are different in three petitions seek leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 4th of October, 1978 whereby their civil revision petitions were dismissed.

2. The petitioners sued the respondent for recovery of certain specified amounts totalling in all the three suits over rupees one hundred thousand. The suits were contested. Issues were framed on 2‑1‑1974. The list of witnesses was filed by the petitioners on 8‑3‑1974. It appears that the relevant record of the department had been taken over at one stage by the Anti‑Corruption Department in connection with certain inquiries/investigations pending against the officers of the department. In order to make the examination of the witnesses required to be produced by the petitioners fruitful, they requested the Court to obtain the records from the Anti‑Corruption Department by reference to which these witnesses were to be examined. The records were summoned and the witnesses were also summoned time and again but they could not appear. An application was filed by the petitioners to issue process to the witnesses as they were mostly official witnesses. The trial Court refused this application on the ground that as the petitioners had failed to submit list of witnesses within seven days of the framing of the issues, it was not the responsibility of the Court to summon them. The evidence of the petitioners was thereafter closed and the suit dismissed. The revisions against it failed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that notwithstanding late filing of the list of witnesses, the Court itself had been summoning the witnesses all along and a request made to the Court to summon them again could not be brushed aside on the ground that the list of witnesses was submitted late. It is also contended that keeping in view the identity of the witnesses who were required to be summoned, mostly the departmental officers, the passing on of the responsibility of producing them entirely to the plaintiffs was unjustified. The Court should have lent its assistance in getting the process issued and served.

4. We find that the dismissal of the suits in such circumstances and for these reasons requires further examination on the legal plane. As the matter involved is a short one and purely legal one, on the facts admitted petitions are converted into appeals. Security Rs. 2,500 in each to be deposited within one month. The appeals shall be fixed for hearing within six months after service has been completed.

M, I. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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