1993 PLP 2310 (MLD)

Nasim Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Raja Mahmood Akhtar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th March, 1993. This petition under section 115 of C.P.C. seeks revision of orders dated 26‑1‑1991, 25‑2‑1991 and 5‑3‑1991 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore during the pendency of a suit for recovery of money filed by the petitioner/plaintiff‑against the respondent.

2. The dispute had earlier come to this Court in Civil' Revision No. 491/89 which was disposed of on 16th May, 1989 with the direction that the legal issues, arising in the suit should be decided as preliminary issues.

3. It appears that on 7th January, 1991 when the case was fixed for evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff stated that he did not wish to produce any evidence except the documents. On the next date of hearing i.e. 26th January, 1991 it was observed by the Court that in view of the order dated 16‑5‑1989 passed by this Court, legal issues are to be decided first and while issue No.l required no evidence, it was necessary for the parties to produce evidence on issue No.3. The case was accordingly adjourned to 20‑2‑1991 for evidence of the parties. On that date, it was objected by the learned counsel for the defendant that though defendant had already led her evidence, petitioner/plaintiff had failed to do so, it cannot be permitted to produce any evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, stated that as in the order passed by this Court on 16‑5‑1989 requiring the trial Court to decide Issues Nos.l and 3 as preliminary issues, the case had been fixed for `evidence, the petitioner is entitled to produce evidence and to cross‑examine the evidence produced by the respondent/plaintiff.

4. On 25‑2‑1991, the trial Court held that as the respondent/defendant has not led any oral evidence but has tendered documents in evidence, question of cross‑examination did not arise. The case w‑s, accordingly adjourned to 5th March 1989 for production of evidence by the petitioner. However, on that date, again an objection was raised by the defendant that since the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner had on 7‑1‑1991 stated that he did not wish to produce any evidence except documents, the plaintiff was not entitled to examine any witnesses. This objection was upheld by the trial Court vide its order dated 5‑3‑1991.

5. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court has erred in law in refusing to allow the petitioner to examine his witnesses who were present in Court on 5th March, 1991.

6. There is no merit, in this argument of the learned counsel. From the record, it is apparent that .on 7th January, 1991 learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff had himself stated that he did not wish to produce any evidence except documents. In view of this categorical statement, the petitioner could not subsequently turn round and claith to produce oral evidence as of right and that too without making any formal application for the purpose.

7. It was next argued by the learned counsel that the trial Court should have allowed the petitioner to cross‑examine the evidence led by the respondent. This argument is highly misconceived. Admittedly, no witness whatsoever was examined by the respondent but his counsel only tendered certain documents which were exhibited without any objection by the respondent. The question of cross‑examination therefore does not arise. Accordingly, this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. AA./S‑289/L Revision dismissed.