ORDER ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.---In after the settlement of issues and recording of the statements of some of the DWs, the respondents/defendants tiled an application to allow them to produce Bashir Ahmad, vendor as DW. The said application was contested by tiling reply to the same and was dismissed by the Civil Court vide order 25-4-2011. The respondents/defendants filed a revision petition and the same was allowed by the District Judge, Hafizabad vide judgment dated 13-6-2011 with the following observations:- "The trial Court however, would have to weigh all the evidence and evidentiary value of each bit and piece produced before it while deciding the case finally, and production of such witness would neither be a surprise nor a move to delay the case indefinitely, because the petitioner himself would produce him before the court. As such, it is held that the trial Court committed material irregularity while exercising its jurisdiction and disallowing production of vendor in evidence. The revision is thus accepted but subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000 and subject to the condition that the petitioner himself would produce such vendor before the Court and not more than one month would be given by the trial Court, from the next date of hearing, for recording evidence of such witness. Order accordingly.
" Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the instant petition.
2. The contentions of counsel for the A petitioner are that Order XVI Rule 1, C.P.C. Requires the parties to file the list of Witnesses not later than 7 days, after the settlement of the issues and that Rule 2 provides that a party shall not be permitted to call the witnesses other than those mentioned in the list of witnesses.
3. Arguments of counsel for the petitioner heard and record perused.
4. Order XVI, C.P.C. Deals with the summoning and attendance of the witnesses which is reproduced herein as under:-- "(1) Summons to attend to give evidence or produce document.---(1) Not later than seven days after the settlement of issues, the parties shall present in Court a certificate of readiness to produce evidence, along with a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents.
A party shall not be permitted to call witnesses other than those contained in the said list, except with the permission of the Court and after showing good cause for the omission of the said witnesses from the list; and if the Court grants such permission, it shall record reasons for so doing.
(3) ---------- The word "call" used in Rule 2, Order XVI, C.P.C. Refers to the call of the witnesses under the authority of the Court. The said Rule places a fetter on the summoning of the witness through the process of the Court and does not prohibit the party to produce a witness of its on. If a witness is present before the Court, on the date fixed for evidence, it is under a legal obligation to record his statement. This proposition of law has been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of "Ghulam Murtaza .v. Muhammad Ilyas and 3 others" (PLD 1980 Lahore 495). The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under:-- "The words 'produce' and 'call' are not at all synonymous. Word 'produce' according to note of the Oxford English Dictionary, Volume VIII, has been described to mean "to bring forward, bring forth or out; to bring into view, to present to view or notice; to offer for inspection or consideration, Exh.
Often used of bringing forward witnesses, as well as evidence, or vouchers, in a Court of law." The words "witnesses in attendance" used in Rule 4 of Order XVIII further clarify the position that witnesses who are brought by the parties in Court have to be examined by the Court. Now comparing the word 'call' used in the term of 'summoning cannot equate with word 'produce' and in attendance used in Rules 2 and 4 of Order XVIII, C.P.C. Comparing the terms of art used in Order XVI and Order XVIII it is manifestly clear that the Legislature only placed fetters for the call of witnesses through Court for which a list has to be submitted within the prescribed period under the present rule. Had the Legislature intended to place similar restrictions on the production of witnesses by the parties without the and of the Court, the word produce should have been inserted in between the words 'proposed to call' and either to-give evidence in Rule 1 and in-between the word 'to call' and witnesses used in sub-rule (2) of Order XVI, C.P.C. Having not done so, the intention of the Legislature is therefore, absolutely clear that the parties are at liberty to bring witnesses along with them on the day when the case is fixed for evidence and the Court cannot refuse recording of their evidence according to rule 4 of the said Order."
5. Thus, it is very much clear that a party to a suit may produce a witness of its on notwithstanding the fact that the name of the said witness is not mentioned in the list filed within seven days after the settlement of issues. The District Judge has rightly allowed the revision petition vide impugned judgment dated 13-6-2011. The same does not call for any interference as the counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or irregularity therein.
6. For the foregoing, this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine..