P L D 2024 Supreme Court 976 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AYAZ and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SAIMA SAEED and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2024 Supreme Court 976 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Yahya Afridi, Shahid Waheed and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYAZ and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SAIMA SAEED and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Practice and procedure |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2024 Supreme Court 976 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Practice and procedure as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2024 Supreme Court 976 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Yahya Afridi, Shahid Waheed and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2024 Supreme Court 976 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AYAZ and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SAIMA SAEED and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Amin Khattak Lachi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Practice of calling the defendant as a witness to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff
In the present case, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction, and then applied for a summons to be issued to the first defendant (respondent), as their witness
Trial Judge declined the application, and his order was first upheld by the Appellate Court and then by the Revision Court
In the facts of the present case, if the first defendant fails to appear in the witness box, allowing the plaintiffs to compel her presence by the issue of a witness summons, would be an objectionable practice
Such a practice places the examination and cross-examination of a witness in the wrong hands, hinders fair trial, and obstructs justice
At the same time, it is also a bad practice for parties to refrain from entering the witness box when they are in a position to give personal evidence
Therefore, the first defendant in the suit, giving rise to the present petition, is expected to provide personal testimony in support of her case
If she does not appear without sufficient cause, it will amount to suppression or withholding of evidence, and the Court will be entitled to draw an inference against her
No infirmity was found in the orders of the Courts below, thus, the same were upheld by the Supreme Court
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID WAHEED, J.
In a suit for declaration and injunction, the plaintiffs (petitioners herein) applied for a summons to be issued to the first defendant, Mst. Saima Saeed, as their witness. The Trial Judge declined the application, and his order was first upheld by the Appellate Court and then by the Revision Court. It is these orders that have given rise to this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
2. The Courts' refusal is supported by the observations of the Privy Council in Kishori Lal v. Chunni Lal (31 All. 116 at page 122). Their Lordships of the Privy Council have referred to the practice, which sometimes seemed to obtain in some Courts of calling /the party's opponent as a witness. They have observed that this practice is highly objectionable. "Such a practice," said their Lordships, "ought never to be permitted in the result to embarrass judicial investigation." In another case titled Mahunt Shatrugan Das v. Bawa Sham Das and others (AIR 1938 PC 59), the Privy Council reiterated that the practice of calling the defendant as a witness to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff is condemnable.
3. Based on the precedents cited above, we may say that it is a bad practice for parties to refrain from entering the witness box when they are in a position to give personal evidence. Therefore, the first defendant in the suit, giving rise to this petition, is expected to provide personal testimony in support of her case. If she does not appear without sufficient cause, it will amount to suppression or withholding of evidence, and the Court will be entitled to draw an inference against her.
4. Be it noted that, in the facts of the present case, if the first defendant fails to appear in the witness box, allowing the plaintiffs to compel her presence by the issue of a witness summons would still be objectionable. Such a practice places the examination and cross-examination of a witness in the wrong hands, hinders fair trial, and obstructs justice.
5. That seems to be the effect of the orders made by the Courts below. As a result, we do not find infirmity in the orders and are poised to uphold them.
6. This petition is dismissed, and leave is accordingly refused. MWA/M-47/SC Petition dismissed.