1984 PLP 3432 (CLC)

‑‑ O. XVI, r, 2‑Application for summoning of such witness who was not included in list to be. filed within seven days of framing of issues‑Rejection‑‑Recording of detailed reasons for rejection when necessary‑Such application made some two years after framing of issues without giving any cogent reason as to why such witness was not included in list but only reason in application mentioned being that omission was just a slip per chance and that testimony of such witness was very essential to right decision of case ‑No new issue was added to give rise to occasion for calling such witness but witness was required to be examined in relation to issues framed a couple of years ago‑No explanation whatsoever in regard to such phenomenon given but application on very face of it was merely a stereotyped attempt to get witness called without giving any cogent reason‑Plea being raised having .nothing to do in context of issues framed long ago‑Detailed order in case of rejection of such applica tion, held, was not required in circumstances‑Giving reason, was a requirement only in opposite case namely when a witness was allowed to be summoned subsequently.‑[Witness]. Mst. Fatima Bibi etc. v. District Judge, Gujranwala etc. 1982 C L C 122 and Nasrullah Khan etc. v. Additional District Judge, Gujranwala etc. P L D 1980 Lah. 435 distinguished. This revision petition calls in question an order, dated 22nd January, 1984 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby he rejected the petitioner's application of even date for summoning a witness.

2. The witness was not included in the list to be filed within seven days of the framing of the issues. It was claimed that the omission was per chance and that his testimony was very essential to the right decision of the case. The learned Senior Civil Judge passed a brief order in the following terms :‑‑ "No ground. Rejected in limine." It was contended that the order was sketchy passed without hearing the petitioner and giving reasons for refusal to summon the witness. Reliance in this behalf was placed upon Mst. Fatima Bibi etc. v. District Judge, Gujranwala, etc. (1982 C L C 122). It was added that the need to examine the witness arose because of supervening @ the termination of the petitioner‑plaintiff's distributorship by the principal‑firm and that the same constituted a good cause to call the witness to prove that the respondent‑defendant had been receiving the impugned supplies from the petitioner as distributor for the principal‑firm rather than directly from the latter. Nasrullah Khan etc. v. Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, etc. (P L D 1980 Lah. 435) was referred to which laid down the principle that where good cause was shown, the Court will have discretion to summon a witness even though he was not borne on the list.

3. I agree with the contention that the order of the learned Civil Judge is sketchy inasmuch as it did not give any detailed reasons in support thereof, but the provision of Order XVI, rule 2, C.P.C. did not contemplate writing a detailed order in case of rejection of such a prayer. However, in a reverse case where a witness is allowed to be called without having been included in the list, the Court is supposed to give reasons. It will be appreciated that giving reasons is a requirement only in the opposite case, namely, when a witness is allowed to be summoned subsequently. And as a corollary. there is no such requirement where such a request is to be dis allowed. That way, I do not think the order of the learned Civil Judge suffered from any legal defect. The relevant application in this case was made some two years after framing of the issues. It did not give any reason why the witness was not included in the list. It did not speak even of the supervening termination of the petitioner's dealership by the principal‑firm. All that it mentions is that the omission was just a slip and that the testimony of the witness was very essential to the right decision of the case. No' new issue was added to give rise to an occasion for calling the witness. Obviously, he was required to be examined in relation to the issues framed a couple of years ago. It should have been known to the petitioner that his testimony was essential. There was no explanation whatsoever in regard to this phenomenon. The plea of termination of dealership seems to have nothing to do in the context of the issues framed long ago. The relevant application on the very face of it was merely a stereotyped attempt to get the witness called without giving any cogent reasons.

4. The authorities referred to above related to different situations and accordingly are of no help to the petitioner.

5. There is no merit in the revision petition. It is dismissed in limine. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.