2006 PLP 534 (CLC)

ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.

This writ petition in fact impugns an order passed in revision by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, upsetting the order of the trial Court who had refused to receive a copy of the Iqrarnama as a documentary evidence on the ground that no mention of it was made in the list submitted under Order XIII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. The learned Additional District Judge was, however, of the view that although this document was not shown in a separate list but mention about it was made in written statement sufficiently enough to establish that the case of the respondent was based on the Iqrarnama and that, therefore, the other side had sufficient notice and this constituted a sufficient cause under the provisions of Order XIII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and, therefore, accepted the revision petition vide its order dated 20-9-2004. The same arguments have been pressed before this Court. The question is as to what is the rationale behind the provisions of Order XIII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. The answer obviously is that nobody was to be taken by surprise and there was transparency about the procedure. The purpose of civil procedure is to advance justice and not be an impediment in the way of justice and if a citation is required, the classical case of Sheikh Muhammad Hussain and another v. Fazal Iqbal and others PLD 1963 Lah. 501 can always be referred to and read and the relevant portion of which is reproduced below for guidance: "Now that is not how I took at the provisions of Order XXII. Those provisions

like all other provisions of the Code

are intended to secure the ends of justice. Not to defeat those ends. No provision of the Code is to be regarded as a trap for the litigants; as if a game of chess were being played in which the consequences were related only to the moves made during the game, and where the playing of the game was its own end. The provisions of the Code are ultimately related to a fair trial of the merits of the conflicting claims of the parties, and all moves with their own fixed consequences, are subservient to that purpose." The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 1999 MLD 2160, which is not attracted to the present case. Mention, however, be made to the rulings of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Anwar Ahmad v. Mst. Nafis Bano through Legal Heirs 2005 SCMR

152. The Iqrarnama, of course, was an essential document in this litigation. Mention of it was made in the written statement filed by the petitioner and for not placing it in the list to be appended under the provisions of Order XIII, rules l and 2, C.P.C., the respondent has been already penalized with costs. There is also a delay caused in his case which is enough penalty. This Court, therefore, is of the view that this writ petition is not competent as nothing is shown to have caused any miscarriage of justice. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on the 1st of February, 2006, and the trial Court is directed to proceed speedily with the case. M.H./Z-4/L Petition dismissed.