Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -- O. XVI, r. 1-Witnesses, summoning of-Purpose of provision to bind down a party to such witnesses who, according to him, would depose about issues framed, in order to shorten litigation and to avoid afterthoughts.-[Witness]. (6) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- --- O. XVI, rr. 1, 7 & 14-Witnesses, summoning of-Witnesses not named in list filed under r. 1-Cannot be called to depose except with permission of Court-Court may, however, also summon any witness at its own instance under rr. 7 & 14.-[Witness]. Aamer's Civil Procedure Code, 1976 Edn., para. 3; Mian Karim Bakhsh v. Firm Thakar Das-Ram Lai and others 1931 C 166; Civil Procedure Code by Shaukat Mahmood, 1963 Edn. and M. Farant, 1978 Edn. ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)- -- Art. 199-Writ-Court below not appearing to have acted illegally or without lawful authority in interpreting a provision of law in such a way which prima facie was ether perverse or erroneous-No writ, held, could lie in such situation. Muhammad Hussain Munir's case P L D 1974 S C 139 ref. ORDER The plaintiff/respondent who had filed a suit for possession in 1973 closed their affirmative evidence on 13th December, 1976. The suit was then fixed for the evidence of the petitioners for 5th of February, 1977, but the same was declared as a public holiday. The last date was 22nd of July, 1978 when the petitioners appeared alongwith their witnesses. 2. On that date, the respondents raised an objection that as the petitioners had not complied with the provisions of Order XVI, rule 1, they should not be allowed to examine their witnesses. The learned trial Court accepted their plea, on the ground, that had failed to submit the list of witnesses, within 7 days of the framing of Issues, and declined to record petitioners' evidence. It was further pointed out that the petitioners had even not filed any application for the purpose and showing good cause for their omission as laid down in Order XVI, rule 1(2). He however permitted recording of the statement of defendant No. 2 on payment of Rs. 60, as costs. The petitioners challenged that order in a revision petition, but the same was…

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