' DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Petitioner has impugned through this Constitutional petition judgment dated 25-3-2005 of the learned District Judge, Batgram on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction, illegal and without lawful authority.
2. In a pre-emption case Mr. Ajmal Tahir, the learned Civil Judge while holding the trial, on the application of the petitioner-vendee diverted the course of trial by allowing the prayer that report of departmental inquiry conducted by D.D.O. (Male) Batgram about the presence on duty or otherwise of an official who was then serving teacher and was a witnesses of Talb be requisitioned and Enquiry Officer shall produce to confirm the same. This order was impugned before the learned District Judge through Revision Petition No.23/CR filed on 13-10-2003 which was allowed and the operative part of the impugned judgment runs as follows:-- "Keeping in view the above stated position, this Revision Petition is accepted and the matter is referred to the learned trial Court for reconsideration as to whether in the given situation, the summoning of Deputy District Officer Male Batagram would be in the interest of justice when regarding the same matter Mr. Rustam Khan, A.D.O. Has also conducted inquiry under the directions of the District Officer (Male) Schools Batagram and has submitted contradictory report and if so, the A.D.O. Who has submitted contradictory report would not be necessary to be examined as a witness."
3. The tone and tenor of the impugned order would show that the matter has been left at the discretion of the trial Court either a to examine or not to examine both the inquiry officers who have given contradictory reports about the presence or going on leave of the witness of Talb on the crucial date of making Talb by the preemptor. The order is not only according to the well- established principles of law and justice, it is also just and fair in the circumstances providing equal opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on this issue vis-a-vis the two inquiry officers reports but subject to the discretion of the trial Court to allow or not to allow it. The impugned order is substantially of interlocutory nature which cannot be assailed in writ jurisdiction. Hence this petition being incompetent both on legal as well as factual premises is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
4. We have noticed with serious concern that trial in pre-emption cases has been given entirely new dimensions-by the trial Courts and the course of cross-examination is not properly regulated and checked by the trial Court rather free licence is invariably given to the counsel putting cross- questions to the witnesses of Talbs almost on irrelevant and inadmissible matters which practice is not conducive to the smooth administration of justice and quick disposal of cases. This trend has assumed alarining proportion and is dearly casting the Courts' time and other important cases are not given due importance and attention.
5.The learned trial Courts are not following the principle of law laid down in the case of "Yar Muhammad Khan v. Bashir Ahmad" PLD 2003 Peshawar 179 which is reiterated as follows:- "Articles 132 and 133 Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984---Crossexamination---Duty of Court----The duty of Court towards witnesses and to steer course of cross-examination on proper line---Court has primary duty to control and regulate process of cross-examination and to strike a fair balance between the parties before it---Only effective control from the Court would bring uniformity and consistency in the process of crossexamination---Courts are required to be vigilant and shall not remain oblivious of its duty in controlling the process of cross-examination---Courts are required by law to see that the same is not abused by the party but at the same time not to unreasonably curtail the said right in a manner causing prejudice to the other party---Court should remain mindful of the universal principle that witnesses in system of justice occupy very respectable place because they contribute a lot and render valuable services in giving evidence enabling the Court of law to reach at a just conclusion while deciding a case/lis pending before it---Court had solemn duty/obligation to protect witnesses from any type of embarrassment or humiliation at the hands of opposite party through the tool of cross-examination."
6. Despite of clear guidelines and directions given in the above precedent case, the trial Courts Judges are conveniently ignoring the same. Such approach of the trial Courts is in clear violation of the Constitutional command/ mandate contained in Article 201 which has made that any decision of the High Court enunciating or laying down a principle of law binding on all the Courts subordinate to the High Court. Such practice, therefore, be stopped before it becomes intolerable for this Court. The learned Judges of the trial Courts must realize at this crucial juncture the phenomena of the back log crises with which the judiciary is confronted today. To suppress this mischief they shall/must firmly regulate the course of recording evidence particularly the process of cross-examination and shall bring it within the limits, and parameters prescribed by the statutory law. Irrelevant question or evidence unwisely brought on record must be discouraged and disallowed. The cross-examination made at random on witnesses particularly those who are witnesses of Talbs shall not be allowed and it must be confined to the facts in issue or relevant facts because much of the Court time is wasted in such process and in this way other important cases are ignored or little time is left for such cases to be attended by the trial Courts Judges.
7. In this case as discussed above one of the witnesses of Talbs was a serving teacher and on that account vendee has disputed his presence on the spot and time when the pre-emptor had performed the Talbs. To knock out the pre-emptor, vendee has devised a methodology by applying to the District Education Officer for inquiry as to whether the said witness was on duty or was on leave on the crucial date when the pre-emptor had made the Talbs, thus a new front was opened and the trial Court was pushed to another course which was readily accepted and adopted by it without any reservation giving birth to another controversy entirely a new one on the issue of Talbs. The course of trial was in this way misdirected which was absolutely undesirable and inappropriate. The omission on the part of the trial Court to properly check the process has given birth to another round of litigation at pre-trial stage and the matter has ultimately reached this Court. Such type of careless dispensation of justice is not conducive to the system rather it is prejudicial to the same.
' On the other hand, the pre-emptor, to counter this plea of the vendee, also applied to the District Head of the Education Department and a second inquiry was conducted where in a report contrary to the earlier one was given showing the said witness to be on leave on the crucial date of making of Talbs by the pre-emptor. In the entire exercise carried out nothing tangible and beneficial for doing substantial justice has been gained/achieved rather the same has delayed the conclusion of the trial.
8. For the above reasons we would once again emphatically direct the learned trial Judges not to open new channels for litigation and they shall actively control and regulate the process of recording evidence including cross-examination and the parties to such suit shall be kept confined to the fact in issue and evidence on ancillary/ axillary matters having no direct bearing on the end result of the case shall not be allowed under any circumstances otherwise they would be violating the principle of law laid down in Yar Muhammad's case supra and instead diminishing the size of pending cases such approach would generate and breed litigations which would be surely detrimental to the system of justice. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar Peshawar High Court, Peshawar with direction to circulate the same amongst the District Courts Judges particularly trial Courts Judges for strict compliance in future.