' EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 18.06.2013 of the Division Bench of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar whereby it allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and allowed the application of the respondents for summoning scribe and stamp vendor.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner by placing reliance on the cases of "Muhammad Anwar and others v. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others" (PLD 2013 SC 255) and "Mst.
Musarrat Bibi and two others v. Tariq Mahmood Tariq" (1999 SCM R 799), contended that summoning of a witness with the permission of the Court is not a technicality where no good cause has been shown by the parties asking therefor. The learned counsel next contended that where a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner that be done that way or not at all. If this aspect of the case, the learned counsel submitted, is considered then the High Court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary equitable discretionary Constitutional Jurisdiction was riot supposed to interfere with the judgment of the learned District Judge, therefore, the impugned judgment merits outright reversal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that though no other reason has been mentioned in the application for summoning the witness mentioned above through Court but omission, too, is equally a good cause as neither the lawyer representing the respondents nor the respondents themselves being human being can be said to be unerring and infallible.
4. We have gone through the entire record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is not disputed on the record that examination of scribe and stamp vendor in the litigation on- going between the parties is imperative for the just decision of the case. Yes, the respondents did not mention the names of these witnesses in their list of witnesses but when during the course of cross-examination, it was suggested to respondent No. 1 by the counsel for the petitioners that he failed to prove the document by not examining the scribe and the stamp vendor, he after having been set on his guards, proceeded to move an application for summoning of the afore-said witnesses. This shows that omission to summon the witnesses owes its origin to either in- experience or lack of understanding on the part of the counsel or the party. Omission of this type was a good cause to all intents and purposes. The High Court, in the matrix of the case, allowed the prayer made by the respondent for summoning the afore-said witnesses. The discretion, thus exercised by the High Court in its extra-ordinary equitable discretionary Constitutional Jurisdiction is not arbitrary or whimsical. It has indeed been, exercised in aid of justice. In the circumstances of the case, we don't feel inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The cases of "Muhammad Anwar and others v. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others" and "Mst. Musarrat Bibi and two others v. Tariq Mahmood Tariq" (Supra) against this background do not justify reversal of the impugned judgment.
5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition being without merit, is dismissed and leave asked for is refused.
' High Court Judgment Upheld.