Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973

Section: 10-A, 199

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 1, 4

 Summary

The petitioner, Usman Saad, challenged the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Islamabad-West, whereby his application to summon a psychologist as a court witness was dismissed on the ground that the witness had not been included in the list of witnesses under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC.

The petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of damages against Bahria University after his contractual employment as Accounts Officer was terminated. The University defended the termination by alleging that the petitioner had poor performance and exhibited ill-behaviour and psychological issues. In response, the petitioner sought to produce the clinical psychologist who had examined him on 17.04.2021 and had issued a report declaring him mentally fit. The trial court refused the request, holding that the petitioner had failed to disclose the witness earlier and had not shown the relevance of the proposed testimony.

The Islamabad High Court held that the proposed witness was directly relevant because the respondents themselves had justified the petitioner's termination on the basis of his alleged behaviour and psychological condition. The Court observed that the psychologist's report was already included in the petitioner's list of documents, and permitting the psychologist to testify would not prejudice the respondents, who would retain the right to cross-examine the witness and produce rebuttal evidence.