C.M. No, 126-B of 2015 'SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This application has been filed by the defendants under Order XVI, Rules 1, 2 and 8, C.P.C. For summoning the witnesses mentioned in paragraph No,2 of this application. This application is contested by the plaintiff bank by filing its reply.
2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff bank submits that the evidence of both the parties has since been completed and that this application is merely an afterthought. It is further stated that the witnesses mentioned at Sr. Nos.Ii and iii have already been examined by the plaintiff bank whereas witness mentioned at Sr. No, iv has since passed away. Learned counsel for the defendants stated that the names of the witnesses were mentioned in the list of witnesses and, therefore, they are entitled to summon them as their witnesses.
3. Argutents of the learned counsel have been heard.
4. The examination of the application shows that all the witnesses mentioned therein are being summoned for production of record. Against the name of each witnesses the following has been stated "Along with complete record of the finance facilities allegedly availed by the defendants": It is, therefore, clear that none of the witnesses sought to be summoned is required to adduce oral evidence rather record of the finance facilities is being summoned through them. In this case, the plaintiff bank has examined a number of witnesses in its evidence and they have produced documentary evidence including Exh.PW-1/1 to Exh.PW-1/60; EX.PW-2/1 to Exh.PW-2/74, and Mark-A to Mark-G to prove issues Nos.2, 3 and 4, the onus whereof was on the plaintiff bank. The defendants were, therefore, under a duty to have alleged the type of record the witnesses were required to produce. However, the precise detail of the record has not been mentioned. Moreover, the record keeper of the plaintiff bank could easily have produced the record instead of the President and Executive Vice President of the bank. This application in any event is not maintainable for want of particulars of the relevant documents sought to be produced.
5. In terms of the proviso added by the Lahore High Court Amendment to Order XVI, rule 1(3), C.P.C., the party who has begun to call his Witnesses is not entitled to obtain process to enforce the attendance of any witness against whom process has not previously been issued without an order passed by the Court stating reasons therefor. This application has been filed at a belated stage: The report of the learned local commission shows that on 20.012015, the defendants closed their evidence and sought adjournment for production of documentary evidence but refused to sign the statement for closing his evidence. On 30.01.2015 the documentary evidence was not produced before the learned local commission by the defendants whereupon the evidence was closed by the learned local commission. This application by the defendants is, therefore, not maintainable particularly when their evidence has since been recorded.
6. In the result, this application being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
MAIN CASE: 7.. Now to come up for arguments on main suit for 09:12.2015.