SYED MANZOOR HUSSAIN GILANI, J.--- The order passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court on 3-2-2005 at Mirpur is called in question through above appeals by leave of the Court. The appeals being against the same order are heard together and decided through the proposed judgment.
2. The fact giving rise to the filing of present appeals are that in a case for damages, one Ch. Muhammad Azam appeared as a witness. He was asked a question in cross-examination as to whether he remained Chairman of Mirpur Development Authority. The question was objected and the objection was sustained by the Court holding that the question is irrelevant, therefore, could not be allowed on which the right of cross-examination was also closed. The learned Judge of the High Court on revision, allowed the cross-examination by re-summoning the witness. He however, held that the question asked was not relevant. Feeling aggrieved of this order both parties have filed the appeals.
3. Ch. Abdul Aziz has called in question the legality of the observation made by the High Court that question sought to be asked from the witness was not relevant. According to the appellant, this observation would influence the trial Court and right of re-examination of the witness and his cross-examination by him will thwarted. It is contended by the Advocate appearing for the appellant that the question was very much relevant under Qanun-e-Shahadat Order and it related to the credibility and the veracity of the witness hence, the learned Judge of the High Court was not right in observing that the question was irrelevant.
4. Gulzar Ahmed the other appellant has also called in question the order of the learned Judge of the High Court contending that when respondent refused to cross-examine the witness, trial Court was right in closing his right of cross-examination which should not have been re-opened.
According to the learned Advocate, once a party refuses to cross-examine the witness his right is waived and the Court is not authorized to reopen it.
5. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, we have gone through the order of the Court and other documents placed on record. There is no doubt that only question relevant to the case can be asked in the cross-examination. However, when witness appears in the case, the credibility of his statement and veracity of his conduct are very much relevant facts and it is open to the other to ask questions from the witness regarding his conduct, veracity and credibility by bringing on record his social position. It is the witness himself who can better state his position. Thus, the question relating to his social or personal position, unless it outrages his personality or dignity, are relevant in view of Article 141 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. The question in cross-examination was as to whether he remained Chairman of M.D.A. Or not. This fact could be proved even by the notification of his appointment, but when the witness is himself in dock, the question regarding his anti-social or political position is very much relevant question under Article 141 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order. The Courts below as well as the High Court were not right in holding that it is irrelevant.
6. As far the argument of the learned Advocate for Gulzar Ahmed that once the appellant refused to cross-examine this witness and it was closed, his right stands waived and it could not be revived is concerned, it is devoid of force. The Advocate representing the respondent did not refuse to cross-examine the witness, but made a statement before the Court that he would like to file a review petition against the order disallowing the question in cross-examination. It was not refusal to cross-examine, but the assertion of right calling in question the legality of the order passed by the Court. The counsel of course could continue the cross-examination on the statement and challenge disallowance of the question later on through a revision petition, however, he chose not to cross-examine the witness further till the legal position regarding question is clarified. This does not operate as a bar to call in question the order of the trial Court.
7. In the circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by Abdul Aziz Choudhry is accepted and it is ordered that the witness may be cross-examined on his social position and particularly question which is disallowed by the trial Court.
There being no substance in the appeal filed by Gulzar Ahmed, it is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to the costs in view of the circumstances of the case.