2004 PLP 650 (CLC)
GHULAM NABI — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAJANPUR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 650 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAJANPUR and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 650 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 650 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 650 (CLC) (GHULAM NABI — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAJANPUR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Tufail Alvi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XVI, R.1
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-- Constitutional petition
Delay in submitting list of witnesses
Petitioner submitted the list seven years after framing of issues
No reason was given by the petitioner for such delay
Both the Courts below had rejected the application
Plea raised by the petitioner was that the provisions of O.XVI C.P.C. should be construed liberally
Validity-- Question of liberal construction of the provisions of O.XVI, C.P.C. could have arisen if any reason for not submitting the list of witnesses within time was given in the application
Discretion exercised by the Courts below was neither arbitrary nor without jurisdiction-- Constitutional jurisdiction could only be exercised if the Lower Courts had acted without Jurisdiction
Orders passed by both the Courts below not suffering from any jurisdictional defect, petition was dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
Facts necessary for disposal of this Constitutional petition are that on 22-2-1993 an ex parte decree was passed by respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner and against respondents Nos.3 and
4. On 22-1-1994 an application was moved by the aforesaid respondents for setting aside the ex parte decree on the grounds that in the suit their address was not correctly given and they were never served.
2. Said application was opposed by petitioner (decree-holder) who filed reply to the application on 3-4-1994. Issues were framed on the said application whereafter evidence of respondents Nos.3 and 4 was recorded On 15-4-2003 when the petition was fixed for evidence of the petitioner, he filed an application for summoning four witnesses through the Court, which he intended to produce in his evidence. The witnesses were process-server who was entrusted with the summons and had effected service on respondents Nos.3 and 4, Naib-Nazir alongwith record and two private persons probably witnesses of the report made by process-server on the summons. Reasons stated for summoning the said witnesses through the Court was that in the ordinary course it was riot possible for the petitioner to produce the said witnesses.
3. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 15-4-2003. Petitioner's revision against that order was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Rajanpur on 30-9-2003 on the ground that the petitioner was bound to submit the list of witnesses within 7 days after framing of the issues whereas the application was filed by him after 7 years without assigning any reason for not filing the list of witnesses within time.
4. The aforesaid orders of trial Court and the learned Appellate Court are called in question in this Constitutional petition on the grounds that both the Courts below had not appreciated the contents of the petitioner's application wherein sufficient cause was shown for not filing the list of witnesses within time and that it is settled law that provisions of Order 16, C.P.C. should be construed liberally and technicalities should not be made hurdle in the administration of justice.
5. Petitioner's counsel has been heard Writ petition and its Annexures perused.
6. A perusal of the application shows that the petitioner has not, stated any ground whatsoever therein for not submitting the list of the said witnesses within time. The application was filed about 7 years after the framing of issues without assigning any reason. Question of liberal construction of the provisions of Order 16, C.P.C. could have arisen if any reason for not submitting the list of witnesses within time was given in the application.
7. The discretion exercised by the Courts below cannot be, therefore, deemed as arbitrary or without jurisdiction.
8. Constitutional jurisdiction can only be exercised if the lower Court had exceeded its jurisdiction or acted without jurisdiction. The impugned orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. M.H./G-316/L Petition dismissed.