MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND Others vs AHMAD YAR AND Other
Leave to appeal was granted to consider the legal justification of a Civil Judge's refusal to examine witnesses presented by petitioners in court on the relevant date. The core legal question revolves around whether the bar contained in Order XVI Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, regarding the filing of a list of witnesses after the settlement of issues, applies to witnesses brought by a party directly, as opposed to those intended to be summoned through the court. The petitioners argued that Order XVI Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, pertain only to witnesses called through the court, not those personally brought by a party. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine this point, setting the case for an early hearing.
- Whether the refusal of a Civil Judge to examine witnesses brought by a party to court on the hearing date is legally justified if no list of witnesses was filed under Order XVI Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Do Order XVI Rule 1 and Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, apply to witnesses personally brought by a party to court, or only to those intended to be called through the court?
- Order XVI Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XVI Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN,J.-Leave is granted to consider whether the refusal of the learned Civil Judge to examine the witnesses whom the petitioners had brought with them in Court on the relevant date, was legally justified on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a list of witnesses after settlement of issues under Order XVI(1), C. P. C. It is argued that the bar contained in Order XVI(1) and (2) is regarding witnesses who were intended to be called through Court and not regarding those witnesses who were brought by a party with him on the date fixed for recording his evidence. He refers to A Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Ilyas and others (PLD 1980 Lah. 495). For the purpose of showing that the impugned order even otherwise was not justified reference is made in Chhabba Ram v. Nathu Ram (AIR 1941 Lah. 38). Security Rs. 2,000. The case should be fixed for hearing at an early date.