SAGHEER AHMED QADRI, J. --- Petitioner Mst. Anwar Bibi filed suit for recovery allowance, dower, a buffalo and Rs. 24,000/- snatched by the respondent paid to the petitioner under. Benazir Income Support Program, which after submitting the written statement on behalf of respondent No. 1 Muhammad Akram was at the stage of recording the evidence on behalf of respondent- defendant, as petitioner-plaintiff closed her evidence on 12.4.2011. Petitioner-plaintiff submitted an application for summoning of one Anaar Hussain son of Sajawal Khan, an employee of Postal Department, to be examined as witness on her behalf. After getting written reply on behalf of the respondent, wherein it was submitted that as name of the above-mentioned person was not cited in the list of witnesses or reliance, therefore, at this belated stage there was no justification for summoning the said person as a witness, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 9.7.2011 dismissed the application. Hence, this writ petition before this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that impugned order is against law and facts of the case; that learned Trial Court did not apply its judicial mind while dismissing the application; that under 1st proviso to Section 7(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 it was discretionary with the Court as any party may with the permission of the Court at any later stage, if the evidence of a witness is considered expedient in the interest of justice, can call any person as a witness; that the petitioner in her plaint claimed the recovery of Rs. 24,000/- which she was entitled to under Benazir Income Support Program and the witness Anaar Hussain being an employee of the Postal Department was to be examined by her to prove the fact that the money was received by the respondent instead of the plaintiff-petitioner, that no doubt the name of the witness was not earlier mentioned in the list of witnesses but at this stage statement of that witness was just and essential for the disposal of the controversy between the parties, therefore, the learned Trial Court must have exercised the discretion in a liberal manner in favour of the petitioner. While relying on "Malik lrfan Ahmed Gheba Vs. Zubi lrfan and 4 others" (2004 M LD 635), "Muhammad Akram Vs. Judge Family Court and others" (2009 CLC 269) and "Sana Muhammad Vs. Family Judge, Karachi and another"
(1983 CLC 3246) prayed that while allowing this writ petition the impugned order be set aside by declaring it without any lawful justification as the jurisdiction vested in it was not exercised by the learned Trial Court and petitioner be allowed to examine the said witness.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed this petition on the ground that as the name of the said witness was not mentioned in the mandatory list to be submitted alongwith the plaint and the petitioner-plaintiff has closed here evidence and the respondent has already submitted the affidavits of the witnesses to be examined on his behalf, therefore, at this belated stage the learned Trial Court rightly dismissed the application. Even otherwise, there was no justification or requirement to examine the said person in the light of the pleadings of the parties.
Prayed this writ petition be dismissed.
4. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.
5. If the plaint and the evidence led by the petitioner-plaintiff is seen, she has submitted a claim for the recovery of Rs. 24,000/- which she was provided under Benazir Income Support Program and allegedly that amount was snatched by the respondent. Although this fact is denied by the respondent but in order to prove the factum of payment and receipt if petitioner wants to examine a witness and when there is a provision available on the statute wherein no doubt under Section 7(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 it is provided that plaint shall contain all the material facts and also a schedule giving the number and the names of the witnesses alongwith their addresses and brief summary of the statement proposed to be recorded but at the same time in the shape of 1st proviso discretion is left open with the Court that at any later stage on the prayer made by any of the parties for calling a witness and if Court considers that evidence expedient in the interest of justice, any such witness can be called and his statement can be recorded. Admittedly, whenever any such discretion is left open with a Court it is now settled that such discretion should liberally be exercised in a "beneficial manner. The basic intention of law, especially in the light of the Proviso of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, is that the controversial questions between the parties which require the settlement of the controversial factual aspects, parties be provided ample opportunities to lead their respective evidence so that these disputes be resolved within minimum possible time at the earliest stage. Herein this case, when the petitioner has submitted application for summoning of a witness which in her opinion and specially in the light of the pleadings of the parties and claim raised by the petitioner was expedient to discharge the burden of relevant issues, the learned Trial Court, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, must have allowed the application filed by the petitioner so that the matter be resolved in entirety at this stage. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner "Malik Irfan Ahmed Gheba Vs. Zubi Irfan and 4 others" (2004 M LD 635), "Muhammad Akram Vs. Judge, Family. Court and others" (2009 CLC 269) further support this view.
6. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed, impugned order dated 9.7.2011 passed by learned Trial Court is hereby set aside and while allowing the application moved by the petitioner, the witness Anaar Hussain son of Sajawal Khan is directed to be summoned by the learned Trial Court and his statement be recorded prior to recording the statements of the witnesses of the respondent . Disposed o.