1994 PLP 1793 (SCMR)

MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J: ‑‑Muhammad Tufail petitioner herein, seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 21‑9‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, whereby his Revision No. 1401 of 1992, filed against judgment dated 7‑7‑1992 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, was dismissed.

2. The relevant facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that Muhammad Naeem Tariq respondent instituted a suit against the petitioner for the recovery of Rs.25,000 by way of damages. On 13‑6‑1991, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before the trial Court consequently he was proceeded ex parte and the case was adjourned to 13‑6‑1991 for recording ex parte evidence. The petitioner moved application for setting aside order dated 13‑6‑10)1 but the same was dismissed on 13‑7‑1991 and the evidence led by the respondent No. 2 was recorded on that date. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid order in revision but the same was also dismissed on 5‑10‑1991 by the Additional District Judge, Lahore. The suit was ultimately decreed on 23‑10‑1991, by the learned trial Court and the petitioner's appeal failed before the Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 7‑7‑1992.

3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned decisions the petitioner filed revision petition which was dismissed in limine on 21‑9‑1992, vide impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

4. The petitioner has appeared in person and contended that he was not afforded adequate opportunity to cross‑examine Muhammad Naeem Tariq respondent who had appeared as P.W.1 and Muhammad Saeed Mirza P.W.2. It was also contended that the suit filed by respondent No. 2 is outcome of malice as the petitioner had got registered a case on 12‑7‑1981, under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 161, P.P.C. against him. It was also contended that the Courts below have ignored the established principle of law that the decisions of disputes on merit are preferred to those passed on mere technicalities.

5. We have heard the petitioner at some length and also allowed him to file written arguments if he deemed necessary in the case but the petitioner has not so far filed the same. The perusal of the record shows that the petitioner did not file written statement in response to the suit despite a direction made by the High Court. The contention that the petitioner was not permitted to cross‑examine the witnesses produced by the opposite side was not accepted by the learned Additional District Judge as well as by the High Court. He has not been able to point out anything from the record to show that he wanted to cross‑examine the witnesses and learned trial Court had declined. In this regard the observation of the High Court relevant to the extent is reproduced hereunder: "The assertion of the counsel of the petitioner as made before the learned Additional District Judge that petitioner was not permitted to cross‑examine the witness of the respondent, when their statements ; were being recorded by the trial Court, was not accepted by the learned Additional District Judge and, in my view, for good reasons, , there is nothing on record of the trial Court to indicate that the petitioner made such a request for grant of permission to cross- examine the witnesses and this assertion, in my view. therefore, is a mere afterthought."

6. We have carefully examined the documents on the file but find no error of law warranting interference in the impugned judgment. We, therefore, refuse to grant leave in this case and dismiss this petition. A.A./M‑1932/S Leave refused.