NAEEM ENGINEERING CORPORATION And Others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing their civil revision petitions. The petitioners had filed suits for recovery against the respondent, which were contested. During the proceedings, the relevant departmental record was taken over by the Anti-Corruption Department. The trial court refused the petitioners' application to issue process to official witnesses on the ground that the list of witnesses was filed beyond the stipulated period of seven days after the framing of issues, subsequently closing the petitioners' evidence and dismissing the suits, which decisions were upheld in revision. The Supreme Court observed that the trial court had previously been summoning the witnesses and that the departmental record was in official custody, rendering the complete transfer of the burden of producing official witnesses to the plaintiffs unjustified. Consequently, the Court converted the petitions into appeals and granted leave to examine the matter further on the legal plane.
- Whether a suit can be dismissed solely because the list of witnesses was filed beyond seven days of the framing of issues when official witnesses are involved?
- Is it the responsibility of the court to assist in summoning official witnesses whose records are held by another government department?
- Does the refusal to issue process for official witnesses under the circumstances warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioners who are different in three petitions seek leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 4th of October, 1978 whereby their civil revision petitions were dismissed.
2. The petitioners sued the respondent for recovery of certain specified amounts totalling in all the three suits over rupees one hundred thousand. The suits were contested. Issues were framed on 2- 1-1974. The list of witnesses was filed by the petitioners on 8-3-1974. It appears that the relevant record of the department had been taken over at one stage by the Anti-Corruption Department in connection with certain inquiries/investigations pending against the officers of the department. In order to make the examination of the witnesses required to be produced by the petitioners fruitful, they requested the Court to obtain the records from the Anti-Corruption Department by reference to which these witnesses were to be examined. The records were summoned and the witnesses were also summoned time and again but they could not appear. An application was filed by the petitioners to issue process to the witnesses as they were mostly official witnesses. The trial Court refused this application on the ground that as the petitioners had failed to submit list of witnesses within seven days of the framing of the issues, it was not the responsibility of the Court to summon them. The evidence of the petitioners was thereafter closed and the suit dismissed. The revisions against it failed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that notwithstanding late filing of the list of witnesses, the Court itself had been summoning the witnesses all along and a request made to the Court to summon them again could not be brushed aside on the ground that the list of witnesses was submitted late. It is also contended that keeping in view the identity of the witnesses who were required to be summoned, mostly the departmental officers, the passing on of the responsibility of producing them entirely to the plaintiffs was unjustified. The Court should have lent its assistance in getting the process issued and served.
4. We find that the dismissal of the suits in such circumstances and for these reasons requires further examination on the legal plane. As the matter involved is a short one and purely legal one, on the facts admitted petitions are converted into appeals. Security Rs. 2,500 in each to be deposited within one month. The appeals shall be fixed for hearing within six months after service has been completed.
Cited by 3 cases
- ZULFIQAR ALI SHAH and others vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others 2002 C.L.R. 1560
- ZULIFQAR ALI SHAH and 5 others vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 6 others 2002 YLR 1560
- J.H. ABRAHAM vs AZIZ ASLAM 1986 SCMR 1382