Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 2447 2016 SLD 2447 2016 SCMR 1976
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1662 of 2016, decided on 17th June, 2016. Date of hearing: 17th June, 2016. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 15.03.2016 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in C.R. No. 413 of 2015)
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE AND QAZI FAEZ ISA, JUSTICE
Mian Shafqat Jan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sh., Advocate-on-Record (Absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.

HAJI ZARWAR KHAN THROUGH L.RS.

VS

HAJI REHMAN BANGASH AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XVI, R. 7---Power to require persons present in Court to give evidence or produce document---Scope---Order XVI, R. 7, C.P.C. provided that any person present in Court may be required by the Court to give evidence or to produce documents then and there in his possession or power---Said provision did not apply, where the persons present in Court were required by a party to give evidence. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XVIII, R. 4---Witnesses to be examined in open Court---Scope---Order XVIII, R. 4, C.P.C. provided that the evidence of the witnesses in attendance shall be taken orally in open Court in the presence and under the personal direction and superintendence of the Judge---Said Rule by no stretch of imagination provided for examination of witnesses who were not mentioned in the list of witnesses. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE:----------------- This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 15.03.2016 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad whereby it allowed the petition filed by the respondents and set aside the order dated 8.10.2015 of the Civil Judge 1st Class West, Islamabad. 2. Learned ASC appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the judgment rendered in the case of Muhammad Anwar and others v. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others (PLD 2013 SC 255) is not attracted to the case of the petitioners as they never moved an application in terms of Rule 2 of Order XVI, C.P.C. The case of the petitioners, the learned ASC added, is clearly and squarely covered by Rule 7 of Order XVI and Rule 4 of Order XVIII, C.P.C. as they sought the persons present in the Court to give evidence. He next contended that if the persons present in the Court are not allowed to give evidence except in accordance with Rule 1 of Order XVI, C.P.C., Rule 7 shall become redundant. He next contended that the well recognized principle of harmonious interpretation requires that all the provisions of the Act be so construed that each of them has a meaning and none of them becomes redundant. 3. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of learned ASC for…
🔒
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