' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs,75,00,000 against the Federation of Pakistan; the Secretary, Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Livestock etc. In which, the Director-General, ,Fertilizer Imports Department, Government of Pakistan, was arrayed as defendant No,3. The matter was contested by the defendants of the case and after framing of the issues, the petitioner concluded its evidence; when the evidence of the defendants was in process and the statement of one Saeed-ud-Din son of Abdur Rehman, Director FID Government of Pakistan was being recorded on 16-7-2005, in the cross-examination, an objection was raised by the petitioner about the nature of his appointment; upon this, further cross-examination of the witness was stopped and he was directed to produce his appointment order. Finally, the case for the above purpose came up for hearing on 7-12-2005 when the witness was present with the document and objection was raised by the petitioner's counsel that such document first be tendered in evidence and it is only thereafter that he will be in a position to cross-examine; however, the trial Court found it otherwise and thus, on account of the above, closed the petitioner's right of cross-examination, vide impugned order dated 7-12-2005.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order has been passed in haste and the petitioner has been knocked out on hyper-technical ground; it was statutory right of the petitioner under Article 133 of the Qanune-Shandat Order to effectively cross-examine the witness appearing against the petitioner and such right has been circumvented and curtailed; in this regard, reliance has been placed upon Kashif Ali Khan and another v. Sher Jan Muhammad and another (2006 M LD 1447) and Lyallpur Cotton Mills v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Faisalabad (1985 PLC 563). The learned Deputy Attorney-General has defended the impugned order.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the impugned order has been passed in undue haste, which obviously has violated and curtailed the petitioner's most valuable right of cross-examination, therefore, such order cannot sustain. Resultantly, by allowing this petition, the impugned order is set aside; the document, which was required to be produced by the said witness, would be first taken in evidence and then the petitioner shall be permitted to cross- examine the said witness. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10-2-2009. As the matter is pending since long, the trial Court is directed to decide the same within a period of six months from the above mentioned date.