' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---The petitioner/defendant in the suit did not include the name of certain persons in the list of his witnesses filed after framing of issues. Subsequently, before recording his evidence he filed an application on 19-3-2007 for summoning five additional witnesses. That application was accepted subject to payment of costs of Rs,1,000. The learned revisional Court went through the order sheet to note that the petitioner had moved the, application on the third date fixed for recording his evidence. It has relied on Mst. Musarrat Bibi and 2 others v. Tariq Mabmood Tariq (1999 SCM R 799) to hold that no witnesses out side the list supplied by a party could be summoned and therefore, has reversed the order of the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the parties have repeated their stands before this Court. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court shows that it concerns a case in which no list of witnesses had been filed. Therefore, in such a case the rule laid down is that the trial Court must not grant permission subsequently to summon witnesses.
2. That rule does not apply to this case. Under Order XVI, Rule 2, C.P.C. The trial Court had a discretion to summon new witnesses, if good cause for the omission of their names in the list filed by a party is shown. The element of good cause is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the learned trial Court. There is no prohibition against the summoning of new witnesses as perceived by the learned revisional court's order,
3. To the mind of this Court the parties have a right to bring relevant evidence on record " so as to facilitate the resolution of the controversy with clarity and good reason. A resort to technicalities hampers the course of justice. In the present case learned revisional Court has wrongly presumed a prohibition to exist in the case. The discretion to allow the recording of evidence of new witnesses is a matter for the trial court. That has been exercised on grounds which do not indicate illegality or injustice to require interference. However, as rightly observed by the learned revisional Court, delay in the disposal of the said is occasioned at the instance of the petitioner. For such violation, he must pay costs to the respondent. Due to further delay Rs,1000 ordered by the learned trial Court is increased to Rs,5,000 for payment to the respondent in order to get his evidence recorded. In doing so the learned trial Court shall ensure that the petitioner is not permitted to prolong the trial by delaying tactics in the recording of his evidence. In case any such tactics are employed the petitioner be put upon notice that his right of leading evidence shall be closed.
4. in the foregoing terms.