AL QASIM TRADERS vs HABIB BANK LIMITED, MULTAN
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an interim order passed by the High Court, which was acting as the original trial court in a suit for the recovery of money. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner's application seeking the examination of certain witnesses on commission. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant the commission for the examination of witnesses constituted a legal error or an improper exercise of discretion. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the witnesses resided in Karachi and Lahore, locations accessible from the seat of the trial court by short air journeys of approximately one and two hours, respectively. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretionary order refusing the facility of examination on commission was neither contrary to law nor against any established legal principle. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the High Court's decision to maintain the standard trial procedure given the accessibility of the witnesses.
- Is the refusal of a trial court to appoint a commission for the examination of witnesses residing in accessible cities a valid exercise of judicial discretion?
- Does the proximity of witnesses to the seat of the court justify the denial of an application for examination on commission?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed; against an interim order by the High Court acting as original trial Court for adjudication of a dispute regarding recovery of money. By the impugned order the High Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner for examination of certain witnesses on commission.
2. Learned counsel stated that the witnesses are from Karachi and Lahore. He admits that the distance of both the places from the seat of the Court where trial is taking place is hardly about 2 hours and one hour air journey, respectively. In the circumstances of the case the discretionary order passed by the High Court refusing the facility of examination of witnesses on commission to the petitioner is neither against any law nor principle. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.