1993 PLP 2325 (MLD)

M.N. Beg and Miss Tasneem Amin for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 16th December, 1992. This grievance raised in this petition is that the petitioners, during the course of hearing of a civil suit, submitted an application mentioning therein that they had handed over a list of witnesses to be produced by them, to the Reader of the Court, but later on, the same was found to be misplaced from the record, with the result that the application submitted by the petitioners later on for summoning of witnesses through the Court was turned down by the learned Civil Judge on 26-11-1991.

2. The revision petition was admitted to consider as to whether or not, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioners should have been granted an opportunity to prove their assertion that the list of witnesses was handed over by them to the Reader of the Court within the stipulated period and it was either got removed by someone or misplaced. 2-A. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.-

3. Right from the beginning, the stand of the petitioners had been that the requisite list was handed over by them to the Reader of the Court for placing the same on the record of the case. It was either misplaced through inadvertence by some official of the Court or got removed from the record by someone interested against the petitioners. Since a valuable right of production of evidence was likely to be affected by this incident, it was only just and fair that the petitioners should have been granted an opportunity to prove this assertion.

4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned trial Court called for a report from the Ahmad. It was reported that the list of witnesses had been misplaced. This lends indirect support to the assertion of the petitioners that they had indeed filed a list of witnesses. Whether or not the Reader of the Court to whom this list was allegedly handed over, passed it on to the Ahmad is a matter which required inquiry. This, unfortunately, OF not been done in the instant case. After perusing the report of the Ahmad the learned trial Court should have deemed it all the more necessary to hold an inquiry in this behalf and grant an opportunity to the parties to lead their respective evidence on this point, if so desired. The failure on the part of the learned trial Court to proceed in this direction and the consequential order passed, which is now impugned in this revision petition, suffers from material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the said learned Court.

5. The result is that this revision petition is accepted and the case is sent back to the learned trial Court which shall grant one opportunity each to the parties to lead such evidence as they may deem proper in support of their respective pleas on the point in issue, i.e. whether or not the petitioners had filed the list of witnesses in Court within the stipulated time. In case the finding is returned in the affirmative, the petitioners would be permitted o file a new list of witnesses which shall be dealt with in accordance; with law. No costs. H.B.T./K-65/L Revision accepted.