Law:

Section:

  Summary The petitioner challenged the trial court's order refusing to allow examination of her witness, Dr. Abrar Ahmed, in a recovery suit filed by the Higher Education Commission (HEC). The High Court observed that although the petitioner had caused delays, the witness was already included in the list of witnesses, and courts should decide cases on their merits rather than on technicalities. Accordingly, the Court granted the petitioner one final opportunity to produce all oral and documentary evidence, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 as costs to the respondent. The revision petition was disposed of on these terms.         ORDER SHEET  The instant revision petition is arising out of order dated 30.01.2020, passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class Islamabad-West, wherein right of the defendant to record statement of his witness namely Dr. Abrar Ahmed was declined with the direction to produce documentary evidence till the next date of hearing. Relevant facts are that the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (‘respondent’) on 19.02.2016 filed suit for the recovery of NZD- 175,598 against petitioner (Ms. Saima Ejaz) and Ijaz Hussain Shah. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement. The Trial Court out of divergent pleadings of the parties framed issues on 30.04.2018. The respondent concluded its evidence on 07.03.2019. The examination-in-chief of DW-1 was recorded on 11.09.2019 while the cross-examination was conducted on 14.09.2019. The petitioner then filed an application for summoning of a Record Keeper followed by another application for recording of statement of a witness through video link which were dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2019 and 06.01.2020 respectively.  On 30.01.2020 when one of the witnesses of the petitioner namely Dr. Abrar Ahmad  entered appearance for recording of statement, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff objected being an attempt to fill in the lacuna emerged during cross-examination of DW-1. The   - 2 - Civil Revision  No.88  of  2020 learned trial Court heard the arguments and proceeded to hold that the said witness (Dr.Abrar…