2009 PLP 982 (YLR)
ALLY BROTHERS AND COMPANY (PAK) LTD. — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Cabinet Secretary and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 982 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | ALLY BROTHERS AND COMPANY (PAK) LTD. — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Cabinet Secretary and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 982 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 982 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 982 (YLR) (ALLY BROTHERS AND COMPANY (PAK) LTD. — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Cabinet Secretary and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Arts. 133 & 134--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.2-Suit for recovery of amount---Closing of cross-examination---After closing the evidence of the plaintiff, when evidence of the defendants was in progress and statement of a witness was being recorded, an objection was raised by the plaintiff in cross-examination about the nature of his appointment---Further cross-examination of the witness was stopped and he was directed to produce his appointment order---On adjourned date of hearing when the witness was present with the document, objection was raised by counsel for the plaintiff that said document first be tendered in evidence and then he would be in a position to cross-examine the witness---Trial Court, however, closed plaintiff's right of cross examination vide impugned order---Validity---Impugned order had been passed in undue haste, which had violated and curtailed plaintiff's most valuable right of cross-examination---Such order could not sustain---Impugned order was set aside, the document which was required to be produced by the said witness would be first taken in evidence and then the plaintiff would be permitted to cross-examine said witness.
- Ch. Khursihd Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Nasim Kashmiri, Dy. A.-G. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Kashif Ali Khan and another v. Sher Jan Muhammad and another 2006 MLD 1447 and Lyallpur Cotton mills v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Faisalabad 1985 PLC 563 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.75,00,000 against the Federation of Pakistan; the Secretary, Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Livestock etc. in which, the Director-General, Fertilizer Imports Department, Government of Pakistan, was arrayed as defendant No.3. The matter was contested by the defendants of the case and after framing of the issues, the petitioner concluded its evidence; when the evidence of the defendants was in process and the statement of one Saeed-ud-Din son of Abdur Rehman, Director FID Government of Pakistan was being recorded on 16-7-2005, in the cross-examination, an objection was raised by the petitioner about the nature of his appointment; upon this, further cross-examination of the witness was stopped and he was directed to produce his appointment order. Finally, the case for the above purpose came up for hearing on 7-12-2005 when the witness was present with the document and objection was raised by the petitioner's counsel that such document first be tendered in evidence and it is only thereafter that he will be in a position to cross-examine; however, the trial Court found it otherwise and thus, on account of the above, closed the petitioner's right of cross-examination, vide impugned order dated 7-12-2005.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order has been passed in haste and the petitioner has been knocked out on hyper-technical ground; it was statutory right of the petitioner under Article 133 of the Qanun -e-Shandat Order to effectively cross-examine the witness appearing against the petitioner and such right has been circumvented and curtailed; in this regard, reliance has been placed upon Kashif Ali Khan and another v. Sher Jan Muhammad and another (2006 MLD 1447) and Lyallpur Cotton Mills v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Faisalabad (1985 PLC 563). The learned Deputy Attorney-General has defended the impugned order.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the impugned order has been passed in undue haste, which obviously has violated and curtailed the petitioner's most valuable right of cross-examination, therefore, such order cannot sustain. Resultantly, by allowing this petition, the impugned order is set aside; the document, which was required to be produced by the said witness, would be first taken in evidence and then the petitioner shall be permitted to cross-examine the said witness. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10-2-2009. As the matter is pending since long, the trial Court is directed to decide the same within a period of six months from the abovementioned date. H.B.T./A-11/L Order accordingly.