Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 3382 2016 SLD 3382 2016 CLD 1566
Lahore High Court

SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, JUSTICE
Ch. Abdul Hameed Chohan for Plaintiff. Rao Athar Ikhlaq for Defendants/Applicants (in C.M. No. 126-B of 2015).

BANK OF PUNJAB through Chief Manager--Plaintiff

VS

Messrs ANMOL TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED through Chief Executive and 3 others----Defendants

Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)------- --------S. 9-------Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XVI, Rr. 1, 2 & 8-------Summoning and attendance of witnesses------- Principles------- Proposed witnesses were being summoned for production of the record (of finance facilities)-------None of the witnesses, who were sought to have been summoned, had been required to adduce oral evidence, and rather, record of the finance facilities was being summoned through them-------Plaintiff-Bank had examined witnesses in its evidence and produced documentary evidence, the onus of which was on the plaintiff-------Defendants were, therefore, under a duty to allege the type of record the witnesses were required to produce------- Precise details of the record had not been mentioned in the application-------In terms of O. XVI, R. 1(3), C.P.C., the party, who had begun to call his witnesses, was not entitled to obtain the process to enforce the attendance of any witness against whom process had not previously been issued without an order passed by the court stating reasons thereof-------Application in question was not maintainable for want of particulars of the relevant documents sought to be produced and as the same had been filed at belated stage after recording of evidence of the defendants------- Application was dismissed in circumstances. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, JUSTICE:--------- C.M. No. 126-B of 2015 This application has been filed by the defendants under Order XVI, Rules 1, 2 and 8, C.P.C. for summoning the witnesses mentioned in paragraph No.2 of this application. This application is contested by the plaintiff bank by filing its reply. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff bank submits that the evidence of both the parties has since been completed and that this application is merely an afterthought. It is further stated that the witnesses mentioned at Sr. Nos.ii and iii have already been examined by the plaintiff bank whereas witness mentioned at Sr. No. iv has since passed away. Learned counsel for the defendants stated that the names of the witnesses were mentioned in the list of witnesses and, therefore, they are…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492