2016 PLP 1566 (CLD)
BANK OF PUNJAB through Chief Manager — Plaintiff Versus Messrs ANMOL TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED through Chief Executive and 3 others — Defendants
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1566 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BANK OF PUNJAB through Chief Manager — Plaintiff Versus Messrs ANMOL TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED through Chief Executive and 3 others — Defendants |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 1566 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 1566 (CLD)?
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: 2016 PLP 1566 (CLD) (BANK OF PUNJAB through Chief Manager — Plaintiff Versus Messrs ANMOL TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED through Chief Executive and 3 others — Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XVI, Rr. 1, 2 & 8
Summoning and attendance of witnesses
Proposed witnesses were being summoned for production of the record (of finance facilities)
None of the witnesses, who were sought to have been summoned, had been required to adduce oral evidence, and rather, record of the finance facilities was being summoned through them
Plaintiff-Bank had examined witnesses in its evidence and produced documentary evidence, the onus of which was on the plaintiff
Defendants were, therefore, under a duty to allege the type of record the witnesses were required to produce
Precise details of the record had not been mentioned in the application
In terms of O. XVI, R. 1(3), C.P.C., the party, who had begun to call his witnesses, was not entitled to obtain the process to enforce the attendance of any witness against whom process had not previously been issued without an order passed by the court stating reasons thereof
Application in question was not maintainable for want of particulars of the relevant documents sought to be produced and as the same had been filed at belated stage after recording of evidence of the defendants
Application was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
C.M. No. 126-B of 2015 SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.
This application has been filed by the defendants under Order XVI, Rules 1, 2 and 8, C.P.C. for summoning the witnesses mentioned in paragraph No.2 of this application. This application is contested by the plaintiff bank by filing its reply.
2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff bank submits that the evidence of both the parties has since been completed and that this application is merely an afterthought. It is further stated that the witnesses mentioned at Sr. Nos.ii and iii have already been examined by the plaintiff bank whereas witness mentioned at Sr. No. iv has since passed away. Learned counsel for the defendants stated that the names of the witnesses were mentioned in the list of witnesses and, therefore, they are entitled to summon them as their witnesses.
3. Arguments of the learned counsel have been heard.
4. The examination of the application shows that all the witnesses mentioned therein are being summoned for production of record. Against the name of each witnesses the following has been stated "Along with complete record of the finance facilities allegedly availed by the defendants". It is, therefore, clear that none of the witnesses sought to be summoned is required to adduce oral evidence rather record of the finance facilities is being summoned through them. In this case, the plaintiff bank has examined a number of witnesses in its evidence and they have produced documentary evidence including Exh.PW-1/1 to Exh.PW-1/60; EX.PW-2/1 to Exh.PW-2/74, and Mark-A to Mark-G to prove issues Nos.2, 3 and 4, the onus whereof was on the plaintiff bank. The defendants were, therefore, under a duty to have alleged the type of record the witnesses were required to produce. However, the precise detail of the record has not been mentioned. Moreover, the record keeper of the plaintiff bank could easily have produced the record instead of the President and Executive Vice President of the bank. This application in any event is not maintainable for want of particulars of the relevant documents sought to be produced.
5. In terms of the proviso added by the Lahore High Court Amendment to Order XVI, rule 1(3), C.P.C., the party who has begun to call his witnesses is not entitled to obtain process to enforce the attendance of any witness against whom process has not previously been issued without an order passed by the Court stating reasons therefor. This application has been filed at a belated stage: The report of the learned local commission shows that on 20.012015, the defendants closed their evidence and sought adjournment for production of documentary evidence but refused to sign the statement for closing his evidence. On 30.01.2015 the documentary evidence was not produced before the learned local commission by the defendants whereupon the evidence was closed by the learned local commission. This application by the defendants is, therefore, not maintainable particularly when their evidence has since been recorded.
6. In the result, this application being devoid of any merit is dismissed. MAIN CASE:
7. Now to come up for arguments on main suit for 09.12.2015. SL/B-9/L Application dismissed.