Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 325 of 1986/BWP, decided on 28th June. 1986.

‑‑‑0 . XII, R . 2 & 0 . XV I , R . 1‑‑Production of documents‑‑Person required to produce document not a witness.‑‑[Witness].

Muhammad Swaleh and another v. Messrs United Grain and Fodder Agencies P L D 1964 S C 97 rel.

‑‑‑0. XII, R. 2 s 0. XVI, R. 1‑‑Production of documents‑‑Court can permit documents not produced under O.XIII, R.1, C. P. C. to be received upon good cause having been shown to satisfaction of Court for their earlier non‑production.

‑‑Ss. 115, 151, 0. XII, R. 2 a 0. XVI, R. 1‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Summoning of witnesses‑‑District Judge, after duly considering relevant provisions of law and for stated reasons, accepting prayer of respondent, for summoning witnesses‑‑Order of District Judge, held, passed in lawful exercise of jurisdiction vested in him‑‑Interference declined in Constitutional jurisdiction.

Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v . Sikandar and others PLD 1974 S C 139 rel.

Muhammad Abdullah Qureshi for Petitioner.

This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 27‑10‑1985 passed by Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur whereby a revision petition filed by Munshi respondent' No.2 was accepted and, upon setting aside the trial Courts order dated 29‑9‑1984, his application filed in the trial Court under Order XIII, rule 2, Order XVI, rule 1 and section 151 of the C . P. C . was accepted.

2. The brief facts giving rise hereto are that Civil Suit No. 152 of 1981 for possession of a house was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge Ist Class, Bahawalpur against Munshi respondent No.2 who also filed a suit bearing No. 320 of 1981 for declaration and, in the alternate, for specific performance of an agreement regarding the same house. Both the suits were consolidated and proceedings were directed to be taken in the former suit, filed by the petitioner. 13 consolidated issues were framed on 15‑3‑1982. Affirmative evidence of the petitioner was partly recorded on 16‑11‑1982 while a part of the evidence of respondent was recorded on 17‑4‑1983, to be followed by the statements in that behalf made by the respective counsel for parties which showed that statement of Munshi respondent was still to be recorded and thereafter the petitioner had to produce his remaining evidence. In the meanwhile, Munshi respondent No.2 had put in an application under Order XII, rule 2 of the C.P.C. to call upon the petitioner to admit the document dated 17‑8‑1960. In his reply thereto the petitioner denied the agreement and alleged the document to be a forged one. Then, on 16‑3‑1983 respondent No.2 put in another application under section 151 of the C.P.C. for thumb‑impressions of the petitioner being obtained for comparison by a Finger Print Expert. This application was also rejected by the Civil Judge on 17‑5‑1983. Thereafter, on 15‑10‑1983, he put in the present application for a Settlement Deed dated 7‑6‑1964being summoned from the Settlement Department and allowed to be proved in accordance with law alongwith the agreement for sale dated 11‑8‑1960, for which purpose he supplied the names of 4 witnesses who were also prayed to be summoned through the process of Court. Trial Judge rejected even this application on 29‑9‑1984 but a revision petition filed there against by the respondent was accepted by a learned Additional District Judge to allow the prayers, by means of the order impugned herein, on a view that since the evidence of the parties had not yet progressed much, therefore, the discretion under Order XVI, rule 1(2) of the C . P. C . , to condone the delay in filing the list of witnesses, deserved to be exercised in his favour for the reason that he had shown good cause for his failure to supply the said list within the statutory period of seven days and since the Settlement Deed was not in his possession but was on the record of the Settlement Department, therefore, the same may have also been allowed to be summoned through the concerned Ahlkar. In this context, he also observed that the official required to produce a document would not, strictly speaking, be a witness.

3. In support hereof, learned counsel has argued that learned Additional District Judge has been in error in assuming contrary to the provisions of rule 1 of Order XVI of the C.P. C. that a person required to produce a document would not be a witness. No doubt, this contention of the learned counsel is correct but it is only unavailing because it cannot, by itself, suffice for interference with his order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction in view of the dictum laid down in Muhammad Swaleh and another v. Messrs United Grain and Fodder Agencies P L D 1964 S C 97 as under:

"Every irregularity or illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction will not render subordinate Court's order void and without jurisdiction. Party seeking revision to show further that there was such violation of statutory provision of principle of natural justice as rendered proceedings coram non judice."

4. Next argument is that learned Additional District Judge has also erred in remarking that the agreement of sale dated 11‑8‑1960 was already on the record because in actual fact it was produced by the respondent alongwith his application dated 11‑1‑1983 for issuance of a notice to admit the same. Even if the said assertion be correct, I do not quite see how may thereupon the order of the learned Additional; District Judge be said to be suffering from any error in his observing on 27‑10‑1985 that the said document is already on the record On his own showing of the petitioner, the said agreement was even before the trial Court when it passed the order dated 29‑9‑1984 which was assailed in the revision below. Under Rule 2 of Order XIII of the C.P. C. , Court can permit the documents, not produced under Rule 1 thereof, to be received upon good cause being shown to the satisfaction of the Court for their earlier non‑production. Similarly, sub‑Rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order XVI enables the Court to permit the summoning of witnesses at later stages upon show of good cause about the omission of names of the concerned witnesses from the list required to be filed under sub‑Rule (1) thereof. Learned Additional District Judge has duly considered these provisions and has, for the stated reasons, been persuaded to accept the prayer by means of the impugned order passed in lawful exercise of jurisdiction vested in him and, as has been held in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139, such an order cannot be held liable to interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

5. There is no force in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.

M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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