2011 PLP 1848 (MLD)

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.

Through this petition the petitioners have assailed the order dated 4-6-2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Sadiqabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4921355 against the petitioner/defendant. The suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant. On the divergent pleadings of the parties learned trial Court framed seven issues. Both the parties produced their respective evidence. At the stage of rebuttal evidence, plaintiff filed an application under section 151, C.P.C. in the trial court for summoning the Incharge Financial Crime Investigation Wing NAB Chunba House, Lahore as court witness. The application was resisted and the learned trial Court vide order dated 25-3-2010 dismissed the same. However, it was observed in the order that plaintiff can produce certified copies of the documents filed against him but in spite of producing the certified copies of the requisite documents in his rebuttal evidence, plaintiff produced some original documents. Defendant/petitioner objected for exhibiting and marking these documents in evidence of the plaintiff but these were under objection exhibited on 4-6-2010 and vide order dated 4-6-2010 learned trial court rejected the objection of the petitioner/defendant and allowed these documents to be admitted in evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the learned trial court vide order dated 25-3-2010 refused to summon the record, the plaintiff could not have been allowed to produce the alleged original documents issued by the NAB Authorities. Learned counsel further contends that these documents could not be produced in rebuttal evidence.

4. On the contrary learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff while opposing the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners maintained that the learned trial court has committed no illegality while passing the impugned order and he sought the dismissal of the instant petition. Learned counsel further contends that when the defendant has not challenged the order dated 25-3-2010, therefore, the order dated 4-6-2010 cannot be challenged now. Learned counsel also contends that no prejudice has been caused to the defendant/petitioner.

5. I have heard respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their valuable assistance.

6. So far as non-challenging of the order dated 25-3-2010 is concerned, it goes against the plaintiff/respondent as through that order his application to summon the record was refused and he was allowed to produce the certified copies of the requisite documents. So far as the production of original documents are concerned, under Article 78 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 without the proof of signature and hand writing of person alleged to have signed or written documents cannot be taken in evidence. The production of these documents in the statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff was not permissible under the law. It is sufficient to presume that the documents which have been admitted without proof will be used against the defendant/ petitioner and it will definitely prejudice his case.

7. For what has been discussed above, this court is left with no alternate but to accept the instant revision petition. Consequently, the order dated 4-6-2010 passed by the learned trial Court allowing the plaintiff to produce original documents without proof is hereby set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to de-exhibit these documents and returned to the plaintiff in accordance with Order XIII of C.P.C. H.B.T./M-229/L Petition accepted.