1. FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against an order made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind dated 6-3-1979 made in Suit No. 253 of 1969 dismissing the petitioner's application under Order XVIII, rule 17, C. P. C. Whereby the petitioner had sought to recall a witness by the name of Pir Bhai for cross---examination.
2. After we had heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, who had filed caveat, we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this petition. However, during the course of the argument, it appeared that though the petitioner would have no right to recall the witness Pir Bhai for cross-examination, he could not be prevented from a examining this witness in his defence. Since the witness was outside Pakistan we enquired from Mr. Rahimtoola, the learned counsel for respondent bank if the bank would have any objection for a commission being issued for examination of this witness as petitioner's witness. The learned counsel took time to obtain instructions and has now filed an application in which it is stated that if the petitioner desires at his own cost to examine the witness Pir Bhai as his witness in the suit upon commission on interrogatories and the bank reserving its right to cross-examine by cross-interrogatories the bank will not oppose such commission application in the suit. It is also stated in the application that instead of original documents, photostat may be included in the proposed commission so that the originals are not lost or damaged in transit.
3. Mr,, Akhtar Mahmood, the learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeabl to the aforesaid suggestion made on behalf of the Bank though some apprehension was expressed by him that the learned trial Judge may not allow the issue of commission. We, however, find that the issue of commission will . Be sought with the consent of the parties and being even otherwise in,the interest of justice apprehension expressed is unjustified.
4. Before parting, I am constrained to say that there would have been no occasion. To make any 'application for recall of a witness in the suit if the High Court had instead of recording the evidence of the parties in piece meal and that too after considerable intervals, proceeded to record the evidence day to day in accordance with the proviso to rule 1 of Order XVII of the C. P. C. It is for more than one reason desirable that the original side Judge must record the -evidence day to day and adjourn--ment in its midst should be granted not as a rule but as an exception and for reasons to be recorded.
5. With the above observation, we dismiss this petition.