Civil Revision Practices for Stenographer – Subah TV HD

Civil Revision Practices for Stenographer

Petitioner has filed this civil revision against the order dated 26.09.2020 passed from the court of Mr. Muhammad Azeem Nasir, learned Civil Judge Class-Ist Depalpur, through which his application seeking permission to submit list of witnesses relating to his main application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside exparte proceedings order dated 25.09.2018 and Judgment/decree dated 25.01.2019 was dismissed.

2                 Learned counsel for petitioner submitted he had also filed an application for temporary injunction with his main application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. That application for temporary injunction was still pending when learned trial court invited parties to produce evidence and submit lists of witnesses. Due to said misunderstanding petitioner could not submit list of witnesses within stipulated period. That local Bar was also on strikes due to which his counsel did not appear before learned trial court. That valuable rights of petitioner are involved. That serious prejudice will be caused to him in case he is not allowed to submit list of witnesses. That learned trial court has even not afforded him opportunity to himself appear in witness box.

3                 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents supported impugned order, contested this civil revision and prayed for its dismissal. They submitted that petitioner failed to submit list of witnesses within prescribed time despite clear directions of court and availing ample opportunities. That he consumed numberless opportunities for production of oral evidence. That all said acts and omissions of petitioner were out of malafide.       

4                 Arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties have been heard and record perused.

5                 To be brief, petitioner moved application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 01.05.2019 in which respondents appeared, submitted their contesting reply after which learned trial court framed issues on 24.10.2019 with specific direction to parties to submit lists of witnesses and certificates of readiness to produce evidence within seven days. However, petitioner failed to submit said list despite said clear direction and moved subject application on 30.01.2020 without assigning any justification for his above failure. Therefore learned trial court rightly dismissed his application vide impugned order. No illegality or infirmity is found in impugned order to that extent.  

6                 So far as a prayer of petitioner that he was not afforded opportunity to even himself appear in the witness box is concerned, he may approach learned trial court with said request for decision in accordance with the law. As a consequence of the above discussion, this civil revision is dismissed. Copy of this judgment is sent to learned trial court and file of this civil revision be consigned to record room after its necessary completion within the stipulated period.

 Petitioner/defendant No.4 has filed this civil revision against order dated 12.10.2020 passed from the court of Mr. Muhammad Javed Iqbal, learned Civil Judge Class-Ist Depalpur, to the extent of dismissal of his application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and application to delete cross examination conducted by representative of NADRA etc (respondents No.2 to 4 /defendants No.1 to 3) on respondent No.1/plaintiff as PW.1.

2                 Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant No.4 submitted to have purchased land 35-Kanals 08-Marlas from respondent No.1/plaintiff through registered agreement to sell dated 31.10.1997 in which the latter used and got mentioned his manual National Identity Card No.336-85-524729. Later on, respondent No.1/plaintiff resiled from said agreement to sell and hence petitioner/defendant No.4 filed suit for specific performance against him in which respondent No.1/plaintiff denied from execution of above registered agreement to sell and his manual MIC No.336-85-524729 claiming the same as 336-85-524762. That said latter manual MIC actually belonged to one Khushi Muhammad son of Hurmat Khan which respondent No.1/plaintiff fraudulently used as his own for issuance of CNIC No.35301-3856107-7. Relating to this fraud and forgery petitioner/defendant No.4 moved application to D.C.O. Okara on which inquiry was conducted and then FIR NO.760/2017 was lodged against him. That NADRA also issued notice to him for blockage of his CNIC after which respondent No.1/plaintiff filed present civil suit. Respondents No.2 to 4/defendants No.1 to 3 submitted their contesting written statement in favour of above stance of petitioner/defendant No.4. However, their representative who was close relative of learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff through cross examination on PW.1 tried to support version of respondent No.1/plaintiff against record. That said examination in chief and cross examination of PW.1 were recorded in absence of learned counsel for petitioner/defendant No.4. That representative of respondents No.2 to 4/defendants No.1 to 3 was not competent to cross examine PW.1 even as per his authority letter. Therefore petitioner moved an application before learned trial court to delete said cross examination conducted by representative of NADRA on PW.1. Like-wise, manual NIC No.336-85-524762 belonged to Khushi Muhammad son of Hurmat Khan who was necessary as well as proper party to be impleaded in this suit to bring real facts and said manual NIC on record. Nevertheless learned trial court without considering these legal and factual points dismissed his both applications against facts and law and failed to exercise lawful jurisdiction vested in it. He has finally prayed to set aside impugned order and accept his both applications.

3                 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff supported impugned order, contested this civil revision and prayed for its dismissal. He submitted that petitioner/defendant No.4 has filed dozens of false civil suits against him. That suit for specific performance filed by petitioner as well as suit for declaration filed by respondent No.1 are still pending adjudication. That petitioner has entangled him in multiple false litigation just to grab his land.   

4                 Arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties have been heard and record perused.

5                 So far as first application moved by petitioner/defendant No.4 to delete cross examination conducted by representative of NADRA on PW.1 is concerned, it is noted that NADRA through its written statement prima-facie supported version of petitioner. NADRA had issued authority letter in favour of its representative to conduct proceeding in this civil suit. Hence, their representative was quite competent to cross examine PW.1. Petitioner /defendant No.4 still reserve his legal right to cross examine PW.1. He will also have the right to cross examine witnesses of NADRA at their turn so as to bring on record his version as well as stance of NADRA. In these circumstances learned trial court rightly declined request of petitioner to delete cross examination conducted by representative of NADRA on PW.1.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *