Respondents No,3 to 6 instituted a suit for declaration. The petitioners filed written statement on 2.01.2006. After the evidence of the respondents having been recorded, the petitioners made an application on 03.05.2011 seeking permission to deposit the expenses for summoning of four witnesses whose names were said to have already been included in the list of the witnesses. The Ahlmad of the Court submitted a report that the list of witnesses was not appended with the written statement. This application was dismissed vide order dated 29.06.2011. This order was not challenged. The petitioner made another application seeking permission to submit fresh list of witnesses on 05.07.2011 contending that the list of witnesses was earlier submitted but has been removed dishonestly. This application was resisted. It was dismissed vide order dated 12.07.2011. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab vide order dated 24.01.2012.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a list of witnesses was submitted in the Court on 18.12.2006, the same has dishonestly been removed; that the petitioner in his revision petition has assailed both the orders dated 29.06.2011 and 12.07.2011; that it is within the competence of a Court to allow a party to call the witnesses not included in the list. Relies on "1994 CLC 1920" titled Bashir, Ahmad Vs. Fazal Din & "2004 SCMR 1367" titled Umar Hayat Vs. Additional District Judge and others, and that Rule 1 of Order XVI CPC has to be construed liberally. Relies on "PLD 1980 Lahore 435" titled Nasrullah Khan and another Vs. Additional District Judge, Gujannwala, & "2005 MLD 1713" titled Naeem Akhtar Vs. Additional District Judge and others.
3. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands, his first application bearing a note by the Ahlmad that the list of witnesses was not produced, was dismissed. This order was not challenged within the period of limitation and was impugned along with the order dated 12.07.2011 beyond the period of limitation. The same had attained, the finality; that the application seeking permission to file a fresh list of witnesses was made 5 1/2 years after the submission of the written statement. The application made at such a belated stage and that too not disclosing the sufficient cause for not submitting the list has legally been dismissed. Relies on 2008 YLR 1871" titled Muhammad Khalid Vs. Mst. Mehmooda Khanum and 9 others, "1989 CLC 42" titled Mst. Hanifan Khatoon Vs. Second Additional District Judge Khanpur and others & "1999 SCMR 799 titled Mst, Musarrat Bibi and 2 others Vs. Tariq Mahmood Tariq.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record.
5. Even if it is believed that the petitioner has not submitted the list of witnesses sought to be summoned by the Court within the prescribed period, he has submitted the list soon after the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. He was under an impression that the list was available on the file. A photocopy of the list provided by the petitioner on 18.12.2006 is available on the file. The removing or at least the missing of the list can be a possibility. Relying on the judgments "1994 CLC 1920" & "2004 SCMR 1367", I set-aside the orders dated 29.06.2011, 12.7.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Noorpur Thal and order dated 24.01.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab, Camp at Noorpur That. The application made seeking the B permission to file fresh list of witnesses is accepted. The application seeking permission to submit the expenses for summoning the witnesses shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Civil Judge, Noorpur Thal and shall be decided in accordance with law. This writ petition stands accepted accordingly.