2005 PLP 2319 (YLR)

The brief resume of the case is that the plaintiff-present petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract on 26-5-2000, details of the properties have been narrated in the plaint. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing written statement, denying the averments of the plaint. From the controversies appearing on the pleadings of the parties, the Court framed the various issues. The objection was raised on 5-7-2004 by the respondents/defendants that the plaintiff had not filed list of witnesses. On this objection, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order XVI, rule 1, C.P.C. and the reply of the same was filed. The Court after hearing the arguments, accepted the application vide order dated 6-12-2000, with costs of Rs.3,000.

2. The said order was assailed by the respondents through revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide, order dated 27-1-2005 and the respondents again filed revision petition on 3-2-2005, the learned revisional Court accepted the said revision petition, vide order dated 2-3-2005.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the subsequent revision petition was not maintainable as the Court permission to file a fresh one was not granted by the Court.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, vehemently, opposed the arguments of the petitioner's counsel.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On 27-1-2005, before the revisional Court the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent made a statement as under:

6. In view of the said statement of the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner the Court dismissed the revision petition as withdrawn. The subsequent/second revision petition was filed by the respondents within the limitation, the respondents have made the statement for withdrawal of the revision petition to file a fresh one. Impliedly, though the Court has not clearly passed the order granting the permission to the revision petitioner to file afresh one. The granting of permission is within the discretion of the Court or permission may be expressed or may be implied from the circumstances. It can be granted on oral submission also. Reference in this context is made to Mrs. Rafiqa Iqbal v. Muhammad Ali Hyder 1984 CLC 2886; Abdul Malik v. Muhammad Urfan and another 1989 CLC 2363 and S. Nisar Ali v. Feroze Din Rana and another 1969 SCMR 933.

7. The learned trial Court under Order XVI, rule 1, C.P.C. is empowered to allow to file a list of witnesses provided good cause for the omissions are shown. The learned trial Court has not passed a speaking order while allowing the application filed by the petitioner under Order XVI, rule 1, C.P.C. and only mentioned that the issue in the case has been framed and the witnesses have been summoned, the case revolves around an agreement and the plaintiff has to prove this document. The learned counsel for the respondents has strongly opposed this application but the same is accepted to meet the ends of justice subject to costs of Rs.300. No reasons for allowing the application has been assigned by the learned trial Court. The petitioner has assailed the revisional order of the Court through the writ petition, the order passed by a Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, it can be challenged through writ petition provided that impugned order is perverse, illegal or without lawful authority. The Revisional Court has conferred with the powers either to allow the revision petition or to dismiss or reject the B same. The learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted, with this situation, could not point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition being devoid of force, is dismissed. H.B.T./M-1119/L Petition dismissed.