1. ' SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---Vide Commissioner's report dated 7-5-2011 filed by the Commissioner, wherein it has been stated that in compliance of the order dated 30-11-2010 notices were issued to the parties, they appeared and plaintiff filed his affidavit-inevidence and copies whereof have been supplied to the learned counsel for the defendant. On 28-4-2011 when the evidence of the plaintiff was to be started, the learned counsel for the defendant raised objection that the documents which have been filed along with the affidavit-in-evidence cannot be produced as the same were not annexed with the plaint in the light of the Order XIII, Rule 1, C.P.C., Consequently, learned counsel for the defendant insisted that the matter may be referred to Court for seeking orders. The learned Commissioner has also requested for extension of time to record the evidence.
2. ' At the first instance, learned counsel for the plaintiff has referred to the order dated 30-11-2010 passed by this Court wherein issues were framed and it has clearly been mentioned that the list of witnesses be filed within seven days and the list of documents be filed within four weeks. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff the list of witnesses has been filed on 6-12-2010 and the list of documents was filed on 23-12-2010. Learned counsel has further stressed that under the law the first hearing of the suit is presumed after framing of the issues and in the instant case on 30-11-2010 when the issues were framed and the Commissioner was appointed to record the evidence of the parties along with list of witnesses and the list of documents ordered.
3. ' On the other hand, Mr. Mirza Mehmood Baig, learned counsel for the defendant stated that he has filed a statement of objection in writing before the learned Commissioner and raised objection as under Order XIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. The documents which are not annexed with the plaint are not admissible at the time of recording of evidence and first the plaintiff seeks permission from this Court by filing a proper application. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon the case of Rab Nawaz v. Muhammad Amir (1999 SCM R 951) and Ghulam Oadir v.
4. Mst. Kundan Bibi (1991 SCM R 1935).
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the Commissioner's report dated 7- 5-2011 as well as law referred to above by the learned counsel.
6. ' Before the opinion of this Court, it is relevant to reproduce the law referred to above by the learned counsel for the parties, as follows:-- "ORDER XIII---PRODUCTION, IMPOUNDING AND RETURN OF DOCUMENTS:-
(1) Documentary evidence to be produced at first hearing:--The parties or their pleaders shall produce, at the first hearing of the suit, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which the Court has ordered to be produced. Order VII Rule 18:-
(18) Inadmissibility of document not produced when plaint filed:--- (1) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint, and which is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit."
7. ' After perusal of the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the defendant and the law referred to by learned counsel for the parties and reproduced by this Court above, in my view the objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant is frivolous, concocted, fabricated and wastage of precious time of the Court as well as date of hearings before the learned Commissioner for recording of evidence.
8. A bare perusal of the order dated 30-11-2010 passed by this Court shows that the issues were framed on the said date and it has clearly been mentioned that the list of witnesses be filed within seven days and the list of documents be filed within four weeks. Consequently, the list of witnesses has been filed on 6-12-2010 and the list of documents was filed on 23-12-2010 and under the law, the first hearing of the suit is presumed after framing of the issues.
9. ' It may be observed that the learned Commissioner should not pay heed in these types of frivolous objections raised by either party during the process of recording of the evidence of the parties. In future, in case, learned counsel for the parties and/or the parties themselves raise any frivolous objections, which cause wastage of precious time of the Court as well as the date of hearings before the learned Commissioner for recording of evidence,, a heavy cost shall be imposed by the Court upon by the defaulting party. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant is not relevant and would not help him in the instant case.
10. ' Three months time, as prayed by the learned Commissioner, is also extended to record the evidence. The learned Commissioner is also directed not to grant any unnecessary adjournment unless inevitable circumstances. In case any frivolous request for adjournment is made, learned Commissioner is empowered to impose a sum of Rs,5,000 per adjournment upon the defaulting party. Learned Commissioner is also authorized to close the side.