List of witnesses cpc in Pakistan | Witness and evidence case laws in Urdu | meaning in Urdu Gwahan ke bare qanooni faisle witness case laws
Witness meaning in Urdu?
Witness meaning in Urdu " Gawah "
گواہ ایک ایسا فرد ہوتا ہے جو کسی واقعہ، عمل یا لین دین کا مشاہدہ کرتا ہے اور جو کچھ اس نے دیکھا یا تجربہ کیا ہے اس کے بارے میں خود ایک اکاؤنٹ یا گواہی فراہم کر سکتا ہے۔ قانونی سیاق و سباق میں، گواہ ٹرائل یا قانونی کارروائی کے دوران ثبوت فراہم کرنے میں اہم کردار ادا کرتے ہیں۔ ان کو ان حقائق کے بارے میں گواہی دینے کے لیے بلایا جا سکتا ہے جو وہ جانتے ہیں اور مخالف جماعتوں کے ذریعے ان کی جرح کی جا سکتی ہے۔ گواہوں کو عینی شاہدین کے طور پر درجہ بندی کیا جا سکتا ہے، جنہوں نے واقعہ کو براہ راست دیکھا، یا کردار کے گواہ، جو کسی فرد کے کردار کی ضمانت دیتے ہیں۔ گواہوں کے لیے یہ ضروری ہے کہ وہ اپنی گواہی دیتے وقت سچے اور غیر جانبدار ہوں۔ گواہوں کی ساکھ قانونی مقدمات کے نتائج کو نمایاں طور پر متاثر کر سکتی ہے۔ اگر آپ کے پاس گواہوں یا گواہی کے بارے میں کوئی خاص سوال ہے تو بلا جھجھک پوچھیں۔
A witness is an individual who observes an event, action, or transaction and can provide a firsthand account or testimony about what they have seen or experienced. In legal contexts, witnesses play a crucial role in providing evidence during trials or legal proceedings. They may be called to testify about the facts they know and can be cross-examined by opposing parties.
Witnesses can be categorized as eyewitnesses, who directly saw the event, or character witnesses, who vouch for an individual's character. It's important for witnesses to be truthful and impartial when giving their testimony. The credibility of witnesses can significantly impact the outcome of legal cases. If you have a specific question about witnesses or testimony, feel free to ask.
 |
| Witnesses and evidence case laws judgements. |
Case laws about witnesses.
2023 SCMR 1375
Related witness can not be termed as a interested witness in all circumstances.*
No appeal is provided in law against an order passed by a trial court allowing an application to produce any witness. (2022-MLD-121)
S-302/34 Art 3 - Child witness, evidence of the child witness possessing sufficient understanding can be believed and relied upon for conviction ( 1995-scmr-1615 )
High Court ne qarar dia ke judges ko electronic or social media per chalne wali kahanio per yaqeen karne ki bajai haqaiq or Court main mojod evidence ki Roshani main faisla karna chahye.( PLD-2018-Lahore-Note-198 )
Insan jhoot bool sakta hai magar documents jhoot nahi bool sakte lihaza court main zubani shahadat ki bajai documentary evidence ko preference di jai gi.( 2019-pcrlj-821)
Agar aik gwah ka bian under section 161 record kia gia or wo gwah cross examination se pehle mar gia tu court iss bian ko exclude kar de gi.
( plj-2004-294 ) ( 1999-pcrlj-1305 ) ( pld-2001-lahore-p-463 )
Munharaf gawah ki shahadat ka wo hissa ju istaghasa ko support kare iss ki shahadat ko yaksar Rad na kia ja sakta hai ( 2008-PCRLJ-1645-B )
Hand writing expert ki shahadat kamzor qisam ki shahadat hai ( 2005-SCJ-834)
Photo copy qabal e qabool shahadat na hai or na hi shahadat main parhi jai gi.photo copy per se wasn't admissable in evidence under the law unless permission taken for secondary evidence from court. ( 2022-clc-577 )
Gawahan ke bianat main Minor tazad ko nazar andaz kar dena chahye sirf bare tazad ko dekhna chahye ( 2017-YLR-428 )
Agar istaghasa kisi eye witness ki gawahi se dasatbardar hu jai tu court under section 540 crpc iss gwah ko batoor court witness talab kar sakti hai agar us ki gawahi zaroori hu ( 1989-NLR cr 573 )
Mudai agar waqua ka eye witness hu tu sirf Mudai ki shahadat per bhi saza hu sakti hai ( 2018- pcrlj - 187-F )
Agar mulzam ka wakil buhat sari adjournment lene ke bawajood bhi Jira na kare tu bhi Cross examination ka right close na kia ja sakta hai balke sarkari kharcha per wakeel kar ke dena court ka faraz hai. ( 2011-SCMR-540 )
Under section 356 crpc agar shahadat per judge ke signature na hun tu aisi shahadat ko mulzam ke khalaf use na kia ja sakta hai ( 2007-SCMR-540 )
Jab bhi aap behtreen shahadat ko rook lete hain tu court hamesha against jai gi yani aisi shahadat ko rokna mulzam ko faida puhnchata hai.( 2005-scmr-1106 ) ( 2012 - scmr-1106 )
Criminal cases main during evidence koi gawah kisi evidence ko apne pass se pesh kar ke exhibit na karwa sakta hai balke tamam documents ka during investigation pesh karna lazmi hai ( MLD- 2004-page-1099 )
Recalling of witness for further cross examination was not provided in section 540 crpc order allowing recalling the witness for further cross examination setaside ( 2021- pcrlj -1558 )
Aik Nabaligh ki shahadat motbar shahadat samjhi jai gi jab Nabaligh khud Kisi juram ka shakar hoa hu , basharat yeah hai ke court ke kathere se waqif hu ( 2021- YLR - 108- Quetta)
Agar kisi document per koi uzar hu tu judge ki duty hai ke aise uzar ka faisla issi waqat moqa per kare final behas tak aise uzar ko pending rakhna ghalat hai ( 2022-MLD-471 )
Writ petition main direction mangi ke trial court ke trial court ko direction di jai ke pehle tamam gawahan ki chief record ( respondent ) ki phir petitioner ko jirah ka moqa dia jai. High Court ne qarar dia qanoon ki mansha hai ke jab aik gawah witness box main dakhal hota hai tu qanooni toor per lazmi hai ke iss ki shahadat record ki jai aik hi session main parts main statement ki shahadat se bachna chahye yeh sirf khas wajoohat ki bina per hona chahye High Court dismissed the writ petition ( 2020- CLC - 900 )
Qanoon e shahadat ke article 133 key mutabaq shahadat ke jiss hissa per Cross nahi kia gia wo hissa tasleem samjha jai ga. ( 2013- YLR - 2403 )
Video link ki shahadat ke waqat gawah ka screen per apni Shanakhat through Id card , Passport , ya driving license dikha kar sabat karna lazmi hai ( 2020- pcrlj- 1184 )
Supreme Court ne qarar dia ke agar kisi gawah ke bian ki koi aik baat wakil ghalat sabat Kar de tu iss gawah ka makamal bian jhoota tasawar hu ga ( PLJ - 2019 - SC -( crc) 265 )
Shahadat main mutzad bian dene wale gawahan ki shahadat ko qabal e itbar nahi samjha jai ga ( PLJ - 1981- SC - 835 )
List of Witnesses by a party within seven days, it doesn't take away the right of the parties to produce witnesses in court on their own - and if witnesses present in court the court can't refuse to examine them. ( 2018- CLC - Karachi - 1334 )
After issue frame , list of Witnesses ko 7 dino ke andar jama karwana lazmi hai , under order 16 rule 1 CPC , time per list of Witnesses na pesh karne ki sorat main thos wajoohat pesh karna lazmi hai thos wajoohat na hone ki wajah se nigrani writ kharaj ( 2019- CLC - 183 Multan bench )
Forensic science laboratory ki report siraf positive hona Kafi nahi hai die gai protocol ke mutabaq na hu protocol per amal kiye bghair positive report ki ahmiat mashkook hai. ( 2020- scmr - SC - 196 )
Kisi bhi qisam ke aslah ki baramadgi ki koi qanooni value na hai jabtak ke iss ki positive forensic science laboratory ki report na hu ( 2018 - SCMR - 772 )
Case Laws on documentary evidence
انسان جھوٹا ہوسکتا ہے لیکن دستاویزی ثبوت نہیں ۔۔ دستاویزی ثبوت کے خلاف انتہائی قوی ناقابل تردید شہادت کی ضرورت ہوتی ہے ۔۔ جو کہ اتنی آسان نہیں ہوتی۔م
Man could tell a lie a document could not & to outdo a documentary proof, better & cogent evidence in shape of document had to be produced
2021 MLD 766 Lahore
 |
| List of witnesses (case laws ) |
سول دعوی میں مدعی کی لسٹ گوان جمع نہ کرانے پر ٹرائل کورٹ نے حکم 17 رول 3 سی پی سی کے تحت خارج کر دیا گیا اس فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل کی گئی جو کہ خارج ہوئی پھر دونوں فیصلوں کو ہائیکورٹ میں نگرانی میں چیلج کیا گیا تو ہا ئیکورٹ نے اپیلٹ کورٹ کا فیصلہ خارج کر دیا اور ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے کو حکم 9رول 8، حکم 17رول 2، سی ۔
پی ۔ سی کے تحت تبدیل کر کے قرار دیا کہ لسٹ گواہان کی کارروائی ڈیٹ آف ہیر رنگ نہ ھے جبکہ ٹرائل کورٹ نے دعوی 17/3 کے تحت ٹھوس ثبوت کے
میرٹ پر کرنا تھا جو کہ نہ کیا گیا اس فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل بھی نہ بنتی ھے اپیلیٹ کورٹ نے بھی اس فیصلہ درست نہ کیا اس لیے نگرانی جزوی منظور کی گئی ۔
PLD 2023 Blochistan 56
List of witnesses
2019 MLD 79 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : FAMIR ASGHAR
Side Opponent : ASGHAR ALI
R. 65---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XVI, Rr. 1 & 2---Election of Chairman of union council---Election petition---Witness, production of---Good cause---Scope---Petitioner's application seeking permission to submit the list of witnesses was dismissed by Election Tribunal on the ground that it was not submitted within the stipulated time---Plea of petitioner was that he had filed such application which somehow went missing---Validity---Election Tribunal could require the parties to file, within 15 days of the date on which the case was fixed for evidence, a list of witnesses whom they wanted to produce in evidence or to produce documents by such witnesses alongwith a precise evidence which they were expected to give through affidavit---Election Tribunal could call such witnesses for the purpose of examination---Under O. XVI, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C., within seven days of framing of issues, the list of witnesses were to be produced and that if such list was not presented, the evidence could be produced with permission of the court after showing good cause to produce the said witness from the list---Missing application could have been located through a probe by the Election Tribunal on the basis of relevant statements of Tribunal's functionaries but the same was not done---Order passed by Election Tribunal was not sustainable, being violative of R. 65 of Punjab Local Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013 and O.XVI, R.1, C.P.C.---Application to produce the witnesses filed by the petitioner before the Election Tribunal was allowed with direction to the Tribunal to decide the matter within three months---Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.
2019 CLC 362 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ASIFA AYAZ TOOSY
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
O. XVI, Rr. 1, 7-A & 8---Suit for declaration---List of witnesses---Summoning of witnesses through process of Court---Scope---Affirmative evidence on behalf of plaintiff was recorded and right to produce evidence in rebuttal was reserved---Plaintiff moved application for summoning of witnesses through process of Court---Application was dismissed on the ground that plaintiff had not mentioned the reason as to why the evidence of said witnesses was relevant to the matter in issue---Validity---Party to a lis to be successful in leading evidence was to file firstly its list of witnesses within seven days of framing of issues---Plaintiff filed list of witnesses within seven days of the framing of issues---Plaintiff was yet to lead her evidence in rebuttal in the present case---Application of plaintiff for summoning of witnesses was supported by an affidavit whereas defendants' reply was not supported by a counter affidavit---Mere non-filing of counter affidavit by the defendants was sufficient to accept the reason set forth by the plaintiff in her application for summoning the witnesses through process of Court---Party seeking summoning of witnesses named in the list through process of Court was required to file requisite application and to deposit the diet money/process fee at least fourteen days prior to the date of hearing---Plaintiff filed her application for summoning of witnesses before she began to lead her evidence in rebuttal---Plaintiff had filed application in accordance with law---If a party was unable to produce the attendance of its witnesses then it could resort to the machinery of the Court for summoning the witnesses provided it had moved an application within stipulated period---Once an application was moved and allowed and diet money/process fee was deposited then Court was to summon the witnesses---If witnesses did not appear despite service then it was for the Court to employ its coercive machinery in order to procure the attendance of said witnesses---Court could not require the party to produce the attendance of the witnesses on its own recognition or on its own responsibility---Courts below had erred in law and facts in refusing to allow the plaintiff to summon her witnesses through process of Court---Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside and prayer of plaintiff for summoning the witnesses through process of Court was allowed---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
2019 CLC 183 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ISHFAQ
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
O. XVI, R. 1---Failure to submit list of witnesses before Court---Summoning of witness with permission of the court---Party seeking such permission was to show "good cause" for failing to submit list of witnesses before court or for omitting the name of such witness in the list---Inadvertence, as claimed by petitioner, was not a "good cause" for allowing a party to produce the list of witnesses after the time fixed for the same had expired.
2018 CLC 87 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : NOOR BIBI
Side Opponent : MEER MUHAMMAD alias MEER JAN
S.32 & O. XVI, R.10(3)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit for declaration and partition---Plaintiffs moved application to summon private witnesses through the court as said witnesses did not turn up despite receiving notices---Application was dismissed by the Trial Court---Powers and discretion of Court to summon witnesses---Scope---Petitioners contended that the witnesses in question were material witnesses which were necessary to resolve the controversy---Respondents contended that Court had discretion to summon the private witnesses if it was satisfied---Validity---Order XVI, R.10, C.P.C.. stipulated that in case of failure of a witness and or to ensure his/her appearance, the court might issue a warrant, with or without bail, for the arrest of such person, and make an order for the attachment of his/her property to such amount as it thought fit---In the present case, no order was passed by the trial court under sub-Rule (3) of R.10 of O.XVI or S.32, C.P.C.---High Court observed that Court of law was not a silent spectator and was supposed to act vigilantly in order to unearth the truth with the subject to resolve the controversy between the parties once for all---Trial Court, in the present case, had failed to realize that conferment of jurisdiction over it was not to rubber stamp the contention of the respondent---Legislature in its wisdom had inserted the provisions and bestowed the court with power to save the litigants from unnecessary hardship, expenditure and multiplicity of litigation---Casual or perfunctory exercise of jurisdiction, or refusal to exercise the vested jurisdiction would tend to defeat the purpose of conferment of jurisdiction upon the court, which would ultimately lead to injustice---Record showed that initially the names of purported witnesses were mentioned in the list of witnesses and summonses/ notices were also served upon them and after their refusal to appear before the court, the Trial Court was not only empowered to issue warrants of said witnesses with or without bail (surety bond) but was also empowered to pass orders for attachment of their moveable and/or immoveable properties in order to enforce their appearance---Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under O.XVI, R.10(3), C.P.C. was accepted---High Court directed the Trial Court to issue warrants of arrest of the purported witnesses without any further loss of time---Trial Court was directed to proceed with the matter on weekly basis and no unnecessary adjournment would be granted to either side and High Court desired that the litigation between the parties would finally be decided preferably within six months after receipt of present judgment---Revision was accepted accordingly.
2018 YLR 2499 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : Haji KHADIM HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : AZMATULLAH
O. XVI, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for declaration--- List of witnesses---Permission to call or produce witness other than those mentioned in the list of witnesses---Good cause---Scope---Plaintiffs after closure of evidence submitted an application for production of additional evidence which was dismissed and revision petition was also dismissed---Validity---Permission to summon a witness not included in the list of witnesses could be allowed by the Court provided a good cause was shown for such omission---Case after closure of evidence of plaintiffs was adjourned for evidence of defendants---Parties after framing of issues should submit list of witnesses in the Court within seven days---Court could permit to summon only those witnesses who were mentioned in the list of witnesses---Plaintiffs in the present case had omitted to submit list of witnesses within statutory period of seven day after settlement of issues---Party could not be permitted to summon witnesses beyond the list so submitted except with the permission of Court showing good cause for such omission---Court in order to grant such permission had to record reasons---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2018 YLR 761 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AZEEM
Side Opponent : Mst. NASREEN BIBI
S.5, Sched.---Suit for maintenance allowance of minors by mother---Application for production of additional evidence by father---Non-mentioning of said witnesses in the list filed with written statement---Effect---Father contended that he could be allowed to produce additional evidence of the witnesses which could not be included in the list earlier---Validity---Record revealed that father had submitted list of twelve witnesses along with his written statement, however, he produced only three witnesses and later he submitted an application for recording the statement of two persons and requested the Court to allow him to produce and record their statements in support of his case---Said application was filed by the father after lapse of more than two years, he had not shown any plausible reason or ground for not mentioning the names of said persons in the list of witnesses submitted by him---High Court observed that father's evidence had been closed and the case was pending for final arguments of the parties, therefore, at such belated stage the application for production of additional evidence would not serve any useful purpose rather said application was an attempt to further delay the decision of the case which was not desirable under the law---Constitutional petition being bereft of merit was dismissed accordingly.
2018 MLD 1181 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : GUL HABIB
Side Opponent : AMLOOK KHAN
O. XVI, Rr. 1, 7 & 14 & O. IX, R. 13 & S. 12 (2)---Ex-parte decree, setting aside of---List of witnesses---Omission to file list of witnesses or failure to mention the name of witness in the list of witnesses---Effect---Summoning of witness through Court---Requirements---Good cause---Scope---Application for recording statement of witness appearing before the Court was filed which was dismissed but Appellate Court accepted the same---Validity---Name of witness whose statement was required to be recorded had not been cited in the list of witnesses---Parties were bound to submit list of witnesses in the Court whom they proposed to summon either to record evidence or produce document---No witness could be summoned by Court if list of witnesses was not submitted by the concerned party---Failure of party to submit list of witnesses in the Court would deprive the said party to request the Court to summon his witnesses---Party who did not obey and comply with the requirements of law was not entitled to get support of law to the extent of his own negligence, indolence and failure---Party could not be permitted to summon witnesses other than those named in list of witnesses except with the permission of the Court---Submission of list of witnesses was condition precedent for further request for summoning other persons as witnesses with the permission of Court---Provisions of O. XVI, R. 1(2), C.P.C. would not be applicable when conditions prescribed under O. XVI, R. 1(1), C.P.C. were not complied with---Court was to record reasons for granting permission to summon witness whose name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses---Party was to show good cause for omission of said witness from the list of witnesses---Court had powers to require any person present before it to record evidence or produce any document then and there in his possession or power---Said power of the court could be exercised suo motu or on application or on request of a party---If Court at any stage considered necessary to examine any person other than a party to the suit and not summoned as a witness by any party then such Court could of its own motion cause such person to be summoned as a witness to record evidence or produce any document in his possession on a day to be appointed and examine him as a witness or require him to produce such document---Witness had appeared in the present case and Court was empowered to direct a person present before it to give deposition even though he might not have been named in the list of witnesses---Trial Court had erred in not allowing the party to summon the witness and revisional Court had rightly set aside the said order with direction to summon him as a court witness---Impugned judgment/order passed by the Appellate Court was based on proper appreciation of law---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2018 CLD 1250 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
Side Opponent : Mst. SHAHIDA PARVEEN
Ss. 118, 122, 123 & 124---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVI, R.1 & O.XVII, R. 3---Recovery of insurance claim---Striking of right to produce evidence---Insurance company was aggrieved of order passed by Insurance Tribunal closing right to produce evidence on the ground that its witnesses had failed to appear in court---Validity---When a party filed its list of witnesses within statutory period and thereafter regularly deposited diet money and other necessary expenses for summoning of witnesses named in the list through process of Court and had filed application under O. XVI, R. 1, C.P.C. for that purpose, then it was for the Court to ensure presence of witnesses by all means available to it including moving its coercive machinery instead of penalizing party for non-appearance of witnesses---Insurance Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity by invoking provisions of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C., and closing right of insurance company to lead further evidence---High Court set aside order in question and remanded the matter to Insurance Tribunal for decision afresh after recording of evidence---Appeal was allowed accordingly.
2018 YLR 2292 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
Side Opponent : Mst. SHAHIDA PARVEEN
O.XVI, R.1 & O.XVII, R.3---Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), Ss.118, 122, 123 & 124---Recovery of insurance claim---Striking of right to produce evidence---Insurance company was aggrieved of order passed by Insurance Tribunal closing right to produce evidence on the ground that its witnesses had failed to appear in court---Validity---When a party filed its list of witnesses within statutory period and thereafter regularly deposited diet money and other necessary expenses for summoning of witnesses named in the list through process of Court and had filed application under O. XVI, R. 1, C.P.C. for that purpose, then it was for the Court to ensure presence of witnesses by all means available to it including moving its coercive machinery instead of penalizing party for non-appearance of witnesses---Insurance Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity by invoking provisions of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C., and closing right of insurance company to lead further evidence---High Court set aside order in question and remanded the matter to Insurance Tribunal for decision afresh after recording of evidence---Appeal was allowed accordingly.
2018 YLRN 13 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHAH
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL
O.XVI, Rr. 1 & 2---Pre-emption suit---Plaintiff failed to submit list of witnesses within seven days after framing of issues---Non-filing of list of witnesses by plaintiff---Effect---"Good cause"---Scope---Petitioner/plaintiff contended that he could not file list of witnesses owing to misunderstanding and that provision of filing of list of witnesses was only directory in nature---Respondent/defendant contended that plaintiff did not file list of witnesses deliberately and had not given "good cause" in his application for non-compliance of mandatory provision of law--- Validity--- Primary question for determination in the present case, was that whether the petitioner/plaintiff could show any "good cause" for non-filing of the list of witnesses within seven days---Plea taken by the petitioner before the Trial Court was that on the date when the issues were framed, the clerk of his counsel had only noted down the next date of hearing without having knowledge that written statement had been filed and issues had been framed and that on the said date due to ailment, he could not contact the counsel and came to know about the filing of written statement and framing of issues subsequently---Petitioner further contended that non-submission of list of witnesses was a misunderstanding, and he being an ailing person could not submit the list within time and prayed that in the interest of justice he be allowed to submit the list of witnesses---Record showed that before filing the application by the petitioner, the case was adjourned for six times after the framing of issues and the presence of the counsel/clerk was marked, which nullified and negated the stance taken by the petitioner---Plea of petitioner, in circumstances, could not be treated as a good cause for non-submission of list---High Court declined interference in the impugned order and judgment passed by the Courts below---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
2018 MLD 1563 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Side Appellant : Dr. (Retd.) ZAHOOR AHMED Side Opponent : Ch. MUHAMMAD ABIDO. XIII, R. 2, O. XVI, R. 1 & S. 148---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 131---List of witnesses---Filing of---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Plaintiff did not produce evidence and defendants were directed to record their evidence---Plaintiff after recording evidence of defendants moved application for filing of list of witnesses and documents---Contention of plaintiff was that due to bona fide mistake he could not file list of witnesses within time---Validity---Bona fide mistake was not good cause to allow the applicant to submit list of witnesses at belated stage---Application had been filed to prolong the proceedings---Witnesses proposed to be examined by the plaintiff were voluntary---Documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff had already been filed with the plaint and exhibited by the defendants---Court would ensure that parties did not lead irrelevant evidence---Application for permission to file list of witnesses was dismissed with costs---Plaintiff would be entitled to lead evidence by way of affidavit-in-evidence.
2017 MLD 1908 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : GHULAM SARWAR Side Opponent : DISTRICT JUDGE, HAFIZABADO. XVI, Rr.1, 2, 10 & 11---Scope---Summoning and attendance of witnesses---Procedure---Rule 1 of O. XVI, C.P.C. contemplates that parties shall present in court a certificate of readiness to produce evidence along with list of witnesses proposed to call or produce either to give evidence of issues and no party shall be permitted to call or produce witnesses other than those contained in said list, except with permission of court and after showing cause for omission of said witnesses from the list---In terms of O.XVI, R. 1(3), C.P.C., a party may obtain summons for persons whose attendance is required in court by moving application to the court---Order XVI, R. 2, C.P.C. deals with deposit of expenses of witnesses in court whose attendance is required---Rule 10 of O. XVI, C.P.C. provides procedure for court to proceed in matter where witnesses fail to comply with summons and Rule 11 of the Order stipulates consequences of non-appearance of witness to whom summon was issued.
2017 MLD 1908 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : GHULAM SARWAR Side Opponent : DISTRICT JUDGE, HAFIZABADO. XVI----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Summoning and attendance of witnesses---Procedure---Dismissal of case in default of producing summoned witnesses---Duty of court to procure attendance of witnesses---Petitioner filed application for summoning of witnesses, which was allowed by Trial Court---Petitioner got recorded his own statement and that of other witnesses, but he could not procure attendance of summoned witnesses on fixed date---Trial Court closed evidence of petitioner and fixed case for evidence of respondents---Petitioner assailed order of Trial Court through revision which was dismissed---Contention raised by petitioner was that impugned order of Trial Court was violative of O. XVI, C.P.C., and the Trial Court having allowed application for summoning of witnesses was bound to adopt all measures for procuring their attendance---Validity---Rule 1 of O. XVI, C.P.C. contemplated that parties should present in court a certificate of readiness to produce evidence along with list of witnesses proposed to call or produce either to give evidence of issues and no party should be permitted to call or produce witnesses other than those contained in said list, except with permission of court and after showing cause for omission of said witnesses from the list---Petitioner had invoked the powers ordained in O.XVI, C.P.C. by moving application to that effect, which was allowed by Trial Court and expenses were deposited by petitioner---Court was bound to move on its own coercive machinery provided under O. XVI, C.P.C. for procuring attendance of witnesses named in the list of witnesses, and the court could not shift responsibility towards petitioner---Trial Court passed impugned order in derogation of mandatory provision of O. XVI, C.P.C.---Revisional court while dismissing the revision petition, failed to rectify the legal error committed by Trial Court in exercise of jurisdiction vested under S. 115, C.P.C.---Impugned orders of courts below could not sustain under the law---High Court accepting petition, set aside orders of courts below, and directed the Trial Court to adopt all possible measures for procuring attendance of summoned witnesses---Petition was accepted accordingly.
2017 CLC 119 ISLAMABAD Side Appellant : Ch. MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Side Opponent : PTCL through General ManagerO. XVI, R.14 & O.XXVI, Rr. 9 & 10---Local commission---Report of---Scope---Summoning of local commission as a court witness---Application for summoning of local commission as a court witness was moved which was dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---Court on its own motion had power to summon a person to give evidence at any stage of the proceedings if it was necessary to examine such person---Such power was discretionary and could be exercised by the court to ensure complete justice---Provisions of O. XVI, R.14, C.P.C. could not be used by a party to a litigation to summon any person---Report of local commission was prior in time to the framing of issues---Had the plaintiff given the name of local commission in the list of witnesses then he could have summoned the local commission through process of court---Plaintiff could not insist the court to exercise its powers under O.XVI, R.14, C.P.C. to summon the local commission as a court witness to give evidence---Report of local commission together with evidence recorded by him would be evidence in the suit---Such evidence or report ought to be taken into consideration by the court in coming to its conclusion, however same was not binding on the court---No party, in the present case, had filed objections to the report of local commission---Plaintiff had not filed any application under O.XXVI, R.10(2), C.P.C. for summoning of local commission---Report of local commission along with evidence submitted before the Trial Court should be treated as evidence in the suit in terms of O.XXVI, R.10(2), C.P.C.---Plaintiff could file an application under O.XXVI, R.10(2), C.P.C. for seeking permission to examine the local commission personally---Revision was dismissed accordingly.
2017 YLR 2521 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Side Appellant : ZAMINDARAN KHALTARO Side Opponent : ZAMINDARAN VILLAGE DASO HARAMOSHO. XVI, R. 1---Summoning of witnesses---Scope---List of witnesses--Plaintiffs filed application for summoning of witnesses but Trial Court dismissed the said application--- Validity---Party could not be allowed to call or produce witnesses through court other than those whose names appeared in the list of witnesses--Party had to satisfy the Court to produce or call a witness whose name did not appear in the list of witnesses as to the circumstances that existed and prevented such party from writing name of such witness or witnesses in the said list---Court had to record reasons for allowing a party to produce such witnesses---Witnesses in question could not be summoned through court---Writ petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2016 MLD 200 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Side Appellant : SHEHERYAR GUL Side Opponent : Mst. SADAF BIBISs. 5, Sched., 7(2) & 9(1)(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Suit for restitution of conjugal rights---Additional evidence, production of---Scope---Husband filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights---Wife submitted written statement wherein she claimed dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower amount and maintenance allowance---Husband filed rejoinder/better statement to counter claim of wife and also submitted list of witnesses with the rejoinder---Husband filed application for additional evidence but same was dismissed by the Family Court---Contention of husband was that previously submitted list of witnesses was only to the extent of claim of restitution of conjugal rights---Husband had earlier filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and had presented his list of witnesses to the extent of his claim in the suit---Wife had claimed dissolution of marriage as counter claim in her written statement---Husband had to file better statement in shape of rejoinder and submitted list of witnesses therewith---List annexed with the better statement was rejected by the Family Court---Validity---Written statement after insertion of S.9(1) & (2) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 had attained the status of plaint---Plaint should contain all the material facts and should also contain a schedule giving number of witnesses intended to be produced---Family Court had power to allow either of the parties to call any of the witnesses at any later stage if it considered such evidence expedient to the interest of justice---Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not only misconceived but was also illegal and based on misreading and wrong interpretation of law on the subject---Provision of law was violated by the Family Court while passing the impugned order which was set aside and Trial Court was directed to examine the witnesses mentioned in the application for additional evidence---Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.
2016 YLR 1316 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : WAHAB AHMAD Side Opponent : Mst. SHAISTA JABINS.7----Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XVI---Calling or producing witnesses other than the ones mentioned in the list of witnesses---Scope---Command contained in O. XVI, C.P.C. was entirely different from the mandate given under S. 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1964---Under O. XVI, C.P.C., three pre-conditions were to be satisfied before seeking permission to call or produce a witness other than those contained in the list of witnesses that were: permission of court, party applying for permission to show good cause for omission to mention names of all witnesses in the list of witnesses and court had to record reason for allowing a party to produce a witness---Under S. 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, while allowing application for production of a witness not mentioned in the list of witnesses, the only point for the consideration of the court was as to whether such evidence was expedient in the interest of justice.
2016 MLD 1400 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : ALAM BIBI Side Opponent : QAMAR SULTANAO. XVI, R. 1---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Summoning of witnesses--- Delay in filing list of witnesses--- Suit for declaration and injunction--- Defendant, a lady or ignorant of law---Effect---Petitioners filed suit for declaration and injunction with permanent injunction in year 2003---Trial Court accepted application of defendant containing list of witnesses and summoned some witnesses in 2011--- Orders passed by Trial Court were maintained by Lower Appellate Court--- Validity--- Application was filed on 07-04-2011 whereas defendant lady appeared in witness box on 28-06-2010 when she got recorded her statement--- Even if defendant was considered a Pardanasheen lady, she could tell her counsel on 28-06-2010 when she came to Court about summoning of witnesses but she failed to do so--- Desire of defendant to produce witnesses proposed to be summoned were not due to any cause of action accrued to defendant at later stage as those were the witnesses of documents in dispute and were even available at the time of filing of suit and framing of issues--- Defendant failed to show any cause to produce proposed witnesses--- Mere desire of a party to do an act which was required to be done in a particular manner could not be considered to be good cause--- Being a lady or ignorant of law did not entitle defendant for any special treatment--- High Court set aside the concurrent orders passed by both the courts and dismissed the application filed by defendant--- Petition was allowed in circumstances.
2016 CLC 1245 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : ZAKA ULLAH Side Opponent : MANZOOR HUSSAINArts. 17 & 79----Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVI---Specific Relief Act (I of 1977), S.12---Suit for specific performance of agreement---Witness cannot be introduced to prove a document unless his name exists on the document or is referred by any of the witness in their statements or is named as such in the plaint; therefore, at least, his name is required to be mentioned in the list of witnesses under O.XVI, C.P.C.
2016 CLCN 127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : Mst. SARDAR BEGUM Side Opponent : ZULFIQAR ALIO. XVI, Rr. 1(2) & 14---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Additional witnesses, summoning of---Names of witnesses intended to be summoned were not mentioned in list of witnesses filed earlier---Trial Court allowed to summon witnesses and such order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction---Validity---Both the Courts below had jurisdiction to entertain application as well as revision filed against order passed by Trial Court---Trial Court could grant permission under O. XVI, R. 1(2), C.P.C., for summoning of witnesses on showing good cause---Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court rightly exercised jurisdiction vested in it---Main object of O. XVI, Rr. 1(2) & 14, C.P.C. was that entire evidence, which was relevant and necessary for ascertaining truth and deciding issues involved completely and effectively, should come before the Court at any stage of trial before passing of judgment---Mere on the pretext of non-submission of list of witnesses and non-mentioning of names of witnesses in list of witnesses, plaintiff could not be thrown out of arena of litigation, because same could not be due to inexperience or lack of understanding on the part of his counsel, which omission was a good cause---High Court declined to interfere in orders passed by two Courts below---Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2016 CLCN 101 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : FEROZ AHMAD KHAN Side Opponent : Mst. ZUBAIDA BIBIO. XVI, R. 1---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---List of witnesses, non-submission of---Effect---Trial Court framed issues and directed the parties to file list of their respective witnesses within seven days---Defendants did not furnish the requisite list of witnesses and plaintiff filed an application for proceeding against them which was dismissed concurrently---Validity---No provision in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 existed under which a party who had failed to furnish a list of witnesses might be punished or dealt with sternly---Party concerned had to decide as to how it would like to proceed with the framework of law to prove its case and to refute the case of other party---Defendants had not made any move to summon any witness through the process of court---Defendants could not be allowed to call and produce an official witness or even a private witness without the provision for the list of witnesses---Party could not be debarred or precluded from examining any witness it intended to produce on its own without the help and process of the court---No material irregularity had been committed by the courts below---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.
2016 YLR 2197 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Side Appellant : Haji ABDUL RAZZAK Side Opponent : MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.O. XIII, Rr. 1 & 2----Production of documents/ witnesses, list for---Condonation of delay---Principles---In the present case, condonation was being sought for the delay only in filing of list of witnesses and list of documents, and the stage had not yet arrived to see that any additional documents were being brought on record---Order XIII, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C., read in juxtaposition, appeared to be directory and not mandatory so as to non-suit a party by refusing production of documents and adducing its evidence---Only requirement was that the party seeking permission under said rules had to show 'good cause' (for delay) to the satisfaction of the court---Defendant, on production of the documents, would be within his own right to question those documents as well as cross examine the witnesses thus produced on behalf of the plaintiff; hence, no prejudice would be caused---Plaintiff was admittedly seriously ill and had expired thereafter; therefore, the plaintiff was not expected to be vigilant enough to comply with the directions of the court to file list of witnesses and documents within the specified period---Sufficient cause/'good cause' was available to condone the delay in filing of the lists---Delay of only six /eight days in filing of the lists ought to have been condoned---Delay in filing of the lists was condoned---Applications were allowed in circumstances.
2014 CLC 711 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : SAMI ULLAH KHAN Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BHAKKARS.12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVI, R.1---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for specific performance to sell---List of witnesses---Additional evidence---Defendant moved an application to file list of witnesses including one advocate who was Notary Public---Application was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, allowed defendant to file list of witnesses---Validity---Notary Public having attested documents could go to the roots of entire controversy between the parties---Allowing such witness was necessary and indispensable for a just and fair decision of a case on its merits---Such was done in the interest of justice and to avoid miscarriage of justice---Lower Appellate Court had rightly exercised jurisdiction vested in it and there was no infirmity or illegality in the order---Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2014 YLR 1025 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : KHURRAM ALI SHAH Side Opponent : BAHADAR KHANO. XVI, R. 1---Summoning of witnesses through court whose names had not been included in the list of witnesses---Scope---Good cause---Bar contained in O. XVI, R. 1, C.P.C.---Scope---Plaintiffs filed application for summoning of witnesses which was dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---List of witnesses was to be submitted within seven days after settlement of issues---Court was bound to record statement of witness who was present before it on the date fixed for evidence---Party to the suit could produce witness of its own notwithstanding the name of same was not mentioned in the list of witnesses---Sub-Rule (2) of R. 1 of O. XVI, C.P.C. had placed a fetter on summoning of witnesses through process of court if the name of that witness was not mentioned in the list of witnesses submitted by the party---Name of witness was not mentioned in the list of witnesses submitted by the plaintiffs after framing of issues---Bar contained in O. XVI, R. 1, C.P.C. would be an absolute bar and would be operative where a party had sought production of witnesses through the process of court---Witness whose name was not included in the list of witnesses could not be called except with the permission of court and after showing good cause for the omission of including the said witness in the list of witnesses---Party could get a private witness summoned through the process of court if it had shown its inability to the court from producing such witness---Court was bound to procure the attendance of such private witness by coercive measures in the interest of justice---No illegality had been committed by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order---Revision was dismissed in limine.
Late installments pay karne per jurmana housing socities kitna kar saktien neche wali video daikhain
Comments
Post a Comment