J.H. ABRAHAM vs AZIZ ASLAM
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's decision to allow the respondent-plaintiff to produce unlisted witnesses and documents. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted within its discretion under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when permitting the examination of a witness and the production of documents not included in the original list submitted by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion, and the High Court correctly upheld this decision in its revisional jurisdiction, finding no legal infirmity. The judgment reaffirms the principle that while Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandates the submission of a witness list within seven days of the settlement of issues, the court retains the discretion to permit additional evidence upon showing good cause, provided that the court records its reasons for granting such permission. Finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
- Can a trial court permit the examination of witnesses not included in the original list submitted under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the trial court required to record reasons when granting permission to produce unlisted witnesses or documents?
- Does the High Court have the authority in revisional jurisdiction to uphold a trial court's exercise of discretion regarding the production of unlisted evidence?
- Order XVI Rule 1(1), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XVI Rule 1(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 20th December, 1978, of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Civil Revision arising out of the grant of permission by the trial Court to the respondent (plaintiffs in a civil suit) to produce unlisted witnesses and documents, was dismissed.
2. It is admitted that sub-rule (1) of rule 1 of Order XVI of C.P.C. Prescribes that not later than seven days after the settlement of issues, the parties shall present in Court list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents. It is also provided under sub-rule
(2) that a party is not permitted to call witnesses other than those contained in the said list, except with the permission of the Court and after showing good cause for the omission of the said witnesses from the list; and if the Court grants such permission, it shall record reasons for so doing.
3. In this case the plaintiff wanted himself to be examined as a witness and his name was not included in the list of witnesses submitted by him in time. He also wanted to produce some documents. The trial Court exercising the discretion in favour of the plaintiff permitted him to produce the required evidence. This exercise of discretion has been upheld by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction as not suffering from any infirmity, legal or otherwise.
4. Learned counsel himself, to be fair to the respondent, cited Mian Muhammad Hafizv.Aziz Ahmad etc. 1980 SCMR 557 and The Australia Bank. Messrs Mangora Textile Industries, Swat and others 1981 SCMR 150, which according to him support the view taken by the High Court. He has also referred to two leave granting others orders namely; Muhammad Sharif and others v. Ahmad Yar and others. 1982 SC M R1200(1) Naeem Engineering Corporation and others v. Government of Punk, through Secretary and another 1986 SCMR 316.
5. The questions in theleave granting orders, it seems, have already been answered in the cases of Mian Muhammad Hafiz and that of The Australasia Bank Ltd support cited by the learned council which as already noted and conceded, support the view taken by the High Courts. Therefore, this petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- SAEED AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR And Other 1989 MLD 4119