' ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.---Rulia son of Umar, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and respondents Nos.1 to 6, was owner of agricultural land measuring 19 Kanal, 14 Marlas, falling in two different Khewas i.e, 2630 and 34 situated in Chak No,127 G.B, Tehsil and District Faisalabad. Rulia filed a suit for declaration on 7-7-2007 for the cancellation of gift-deed No,1196 dated 6-4-2007 in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 6. The suit was filed through Mst. Nasreen his daughter as a next friend the reason whereof is given in para-3 of the plaint, which is as follows:-- "That the plaintiff is a sick person and due to his old age and the disease, had lost his mind, did not have a disposing mind and had gone insane merely a year earlier. Furthermore the plaintiff for the last one year, the plaintiff is unable to record any kind of statement and also unable to execute any kind of document before any competent authority."
' The contesting respondents/defendants made a request before the Civil Court for summoning of Rulia plaintiff so as to ascertain as if he was lunatic or a normal person and the same was accepted. On 27-7-2007, Rulia aforementioned appeared before the Court. The Presiding Officer directed the parties and their counsel to leave the Court room to ascertain the mental condition of the plaintiff. The Presiding Officer put certain questions to him and gave observations. The same are in the following words:-- "It is pertinent to mention here that although, the plaintiff is a man of very advance age and has problem in hearing but he is a person of good health and he was put to question in louder voice. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that despite feature of advance age, the plaintiff Rulia is a person of very sound mind and has alienated the property in question with his own sound will and intention."
' Mst. Nasreen Bibi challenged the said proceedings dated 27-7-2007 before the Addl. District Judge through a revision petition which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 18-12-2008. Feeling aggrieved of the same, Mst. Nasreen has filed the instant constitutional petition.
2. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are that the Civil Court is not vested the powers to record the statement of the plaintiff especially in the absence of the parties and thus in this manner, the right of the petitioner Nasreen Bibi to contest the matter has seriously been prejudiced. It is submitted that during the pendency of the revision petition, Rulia aforementioned expired and that the learned Addl. District Judge has issued a direction to bring his legal heirs on the record and thus the suit is maintainable. According to him, it is not requirement of the law that before the filing of the suit some material is placed before a Court from which it can be ascertained that the plaintiff is of unsound mind. With this submission, it is prayed that proceedings conducted by the Civil Court on 27-7-2007 be set aside.
3. Conversely, the contentions of the counsel for the respondents are that petitioner Mst. Nasreen has no right whatsoever to file revision petition before the District Court and so also the instant constitutional petition before this Court. According to him, the Civil Court was justified in summoning and recording statement of Rulia and that it did not commit any illegality or material irregularity. With these submissions it is prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. Heard. Perused the record.
5. The suit was filed by Rulia through the next friend as according to Mst. Nasreen, plaintiff was unsound and he could not pursue the matter himself. To ascertain this fact, the Civil Court deemed appropriate to summon the plaintiff. The Civil Court is fully competent to examine a party under Order X Rule 2, C.P.C., the same is reproduced as under:-- "Oral examination of the party or companion of party---At the first hearing of the suit, or at any subsequent hearing, any party appearing in person or present in Court, or any person able to answer any material question relating to the suit by whom such party or his pleader is accompanied, (shall) be examined orally by the Court; and the court, may if it thinks fit, put in the course of such examination questions suggested by either party."
' The oral examination of a party is meant for the purpose of ascertaining the matter in controversy.
The Civil Court did not exceed its jurisdiction, while summoning the plaintiff and recording his statement for the purpose of ascertaining the fact as if he was a person of un-sound mind or healthy one for filing the suit. The Civil Court was also justified in recording statement of Rulia aforementioned in camera dispelling the impression of influence of any of the parties. In exercise of its powers under section 151, C.P.C., a Civil Court can make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. The Courts are not to act upon the principle that every procedure is to be taken to be prohibited unless it is expressly provided for by the Code, but on the converse principle that every procedure is to be understood as permissible till it is shown to be prohibited by law. As a matter of general principle, prohibition cannot be presumed.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, it is observed that the Civil Court did not commit any illegality or irregularity while recording statement of the plaintiff Rulia. Resultantly this petition has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.