Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section:

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---O.XVIII, R.2---Sufficient powers having been given to Court to record evidence of any witness at any stage of suit, application for summoning witnesses whose evidence was essential for just, decision of case, made at the time when case was fixed for arguments, was rightly accepted by Court. - [Witness]. Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 199---No writ could be issued in aid of injustice. Tufail Muhammad and another v. Raja Muhammad Zia Ullah Khan. Claims Commissioner, Lahore and another P L D 1965 SC 269 and Federation of Pakistan and others v. Hajiuhammad Saifullah Khan and others P L D1989 SC 166 ref Ch. Muzammal Khan for Petitioners. Mian Ghulam Rasool and Farooq Bedat,-Addl. A.G for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th February, 1991. JUDGMENT A suit for joint possession was instituted by Mst. Sharifan Bibi, Mst. Zainab Bibi and Mst. Murad Bibi, petitioners, against Asghar Ali, respondent No.l, before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jaranwala, on 5-3-1985. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement. However, he did not file a list of witnesses within seven days. As many as five issues; arising out of the pleadings of the parties, were framed by the learned trial Judge on 5-3-1986. An application was moved by the respondent on 17-12-1988 for summoning the witnesses, mentioned therein. The necessary expenses for summoning the witnesses were also deposited by the respondent on 19-12-1988. The application was disallowed by the learned trial Judge on 14-1-1989 on the ground that the witnesses could not be summoned at that stage of the case. The evidence of three witnesses produced by the respondent was recorded on 14-1-1989. Admittedly, evidence of respondent has not been closed so far. Abdul Wahid Lambardar and Sardar Muhammad Khewatdar were not present on the date fixed for recording evidence and   as such the evidence was closed under Order XVII, Rule 3, CY.C. qua the said two witnesses on 14-1-1989. 2. According to the learned counsel, this order was never assailed any further. Another miscellaneous application was moved by the respondent on 2-4-1989 for summoning these witnesses…