The petitioner is aggrieved of the order of the learned Rent Tribunal dated 14.06.2014 whereby his request to confront various receipts to RW2 duly exhibited in the statement of AW4 was turned down.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Rent Tribunal erred in law while passing impugned order; that the receipts which were exhibited in the statement of AW4 were allegedly issued in the presence of RW2, therefore, in order to determined veracity thereof, it was necessary to confront the same to the said witness; that in order to prove the payment of rent, the petitioner is required to prove said receipts, otherwise, he shall suffer irreparable loss; that the learned Rent Tribunal without adverting to this aspect to the matter passed the impugned order which is not sustainable in the eye of law.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents submits the impugned order is an interlocutory order against which writ petition is not maintainable; that the person to whom the petitioner wishes the confront various receipts had neither issued the said receipts nor the same bear his signatures as such the learned Rent Tribunal has rights turned down request of the petitioner to confront said receipts to this witness and there no occasion arises for this Court to intervene with the same in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. It is settled principle of law that only that document can be put in crass-examination to a witness who had executed the same or it bears his signature. It is an admitted fact that RW2 to whom the petitioner wishes to confront various receipts already exhibited in the statement of AW4 is neither the scribe of said receipts nor they bear his signatures. Furthermore, it was no where the case of respondents that the said receipts were issued in the presence of RW2. In the absence of any such eventuality, learned Rent Tribunal rightly declined the petitioner to confront said documents to RW2 and while doing so it has not committed any illegality or irregularity calling for interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
6. Besides, the order impugned in this Constitutional pkition is an interim order and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases reported as Mst. Seema Begum vs. Muhammad Ishaq and others (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 45) and Syed Saghir Ahmad Naqvi vs. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, S & GAD, Karachi and another (1996 SCM R 1165) writ petition is not maintainable against an interlocutory order.
7. Resultantly, this petition fails and dismissed accordingly.