MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. --- The brief facts of the case are that a suit for possession through specific performance filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is pending adjudication before the learned Trial Court. During the course of the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff Kausar Mehmood, the respondent No. 2's litigation clerk appeared as P.W.4 (who was summoned by the Court on the application of respondent No. 1 alongwith record). During his cross-examination, on the objection of the petitioner, the learned Trial Court passed an interim order holding that since the name of the present P.W.4 was not mentioned in the application of the plaintiff, his/P.W.4's testimony could not be read in evidence. This order was assailed through a revision petition and the learned Revisional Court, vide order dated 27.10.2009 held as under:- "The parties concluded their evidence and evidential value of statement of P.W. Can be determined by the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the case."
Apart from other observation of the Revisional Court for the learned Trial Court that in view of the significance of PW-4, its evidentiary value shall be decided at the time of final adjudication. When confronted with this situation, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner remained speechless and could not respond to the query put by the Court.
C.L.R.
3. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that this inconsequential matter is pending adjudication before the learned Trial Court for long. Hence, without dilating upon the evidentiary value of the P.Ws. As it is likely to impinge on the rights of parties at this stage, this writ petition is rejected as the well judged order 27.10.2009 of the learned Revisional Court, by no means, infringes on the rights of either party.