' ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 25-10-2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Ist. Class, Chichawatni and the order dated 31-10-2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chichawatni, whereby his application for filing the list of witnesses was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,3 filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the petitioner challenging the validity of registered deed No, 694 dated 23-7- 2002 and mutation No, 1432 dated 15-8-2002 and registered deed No, 13 dated 4-1-2003 and Mutation No, 1473 dated 6-3-2003. This suit was contested by the petitioner through filing the written statement denying the averments of the plaint and out of the divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed on 3-10-2011.There-after the evidence of the plaintiff as well as of the defendant was completed and the case was fixed for production of the documentary evidence of the petitioner/defendant. At this stage, an application dated 9-10-2013 was filed for submission of the list of witnesses and for summoning the record. This application was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 25-10-2013 which was assailed in appeal which too met with the same fate, hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below have not applied their judicious mind while dismissing the application for submission of the list of witnesses as there was a legitimate right of the petitioner to produce the said witnesses. He has relied upon the judgments reported as The Australasia Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Mangora Textile Industries, SWAT and others (1981 SCM R 150), Naeem Akhtar v. Additional District Judge and others (2005 M LD 1713) and Muslim Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Chief Executive and another (2003 M LD 1521).
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record with care.
5. I have perused the contents of the application for submission of the list of witnesses, wherein it has been asserted that the petitioner was unaware regarding the non-submission of the list of witnesses and when he tried to deposit the expenses for summoning the witnesses then he came to know that the list of witnesses has not been filed. I am afraid that the contention raised in this application does not come within the definition of good cause as has recently been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as Muhammad Anwar and others v. Mst.
Ilyas Begum and others (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 255) in the following terms:- "Be that as it may, before proceeding with the matter further in the context of answering the propositions herein involved and for the purposes of interpretation of sub-Rules (1) and (2) of Order XVI, C.P.C. And for elucidation of the said question, I would also like to resort to another expression i,e, "sufficient cause" which has been used by the legislature in the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, especially in Order IX, Rule 9 and Order IX, Rule 13 as against the word "good cause" used in Rule 7 of the said Order (IX of C.P.C.); besides Order XLI, Rule 19 thereof: Rules 9 and 13 ibid pertains to setting aside of an ex parte proceedings or the decree on the behest of defendant(s) of a case who must establish a "sufficient cause" while under Rule 7 supra, the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution, should show a good cause for seeking its restoration. The distinction between the two expressions shall be made in the succeeding part of the judgment. Anyhow with reference to the proposition(s) in hand, XVI(2) can validly, be bifurcated into two pans, firstly, it has been made incumbent upon a party, rather a duty has been cast upon the delinquent party to show 'good cause' for omission to file the list of witnesses or the name of a particular witness and the second part is meant to regulate the power, authority and the discretion of the Court in relation to the grant of permission".
' It has also been held in the judgment supra that:- "In the instant case, the learned Revisional Court while overturning the trial court order has absolutely failed to assign any valid reasons, except invoking the general principle of law that the technicalities of law should not be allowed to thwart the rights of the litigants. I fail to understand as to how the noted principle can be used as a tool to avoid, shun or to defeat the specific rules of law and to save a party from the consequences of its delinquency against the clear command of law on the concept and in terms of legal technicality. It is a well known principle of law that where the law requires an act to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in that manner alone and such dictate of law cannot be terms as a technicality".
' Since the petitioner has not been able to establish on record any reasonable or good cause for non-submitting the list of witnesses, the learned courts below have rightly dismissed the same. The orders passed by the courts below are quite in accordance with law and no illegality has been committed which could be reversed by this court in its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.
6. In view of the discussion above, in my view this writ petition is not maintainable which is hereby dismissed in limine.