' ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 30.01.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge/Rent Tribunal, Dera Ghazi Khan whereby application of the petitioner for summoning Iftikhar Hussain as witness of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that in order to meet the ends of justice, the appearance of the witness in question is necessary and if he is not called for evidence, the petitioner will not be able to prove the execution of the disputed agreement dated 21.06.2005. He has relied upon the law laid down in cases reported as 1998 M LD 678 and 2006 M LD 1532. He has prayed for acceptance of this writ petition as prayed for.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that this writ petition is not maintainable as it has been filed against an interim order. He has relied upon the ratio laid down in case cited as 2010 CLC 1590. Learned counsel argues that a person who refuses to appear before the court as a witness cannot be compelled under any statutory provision of law to give evidence.
He prays for dismissal of this writ petition.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Scanning of record reveals that respondent No.1 Safdar Hussain (the respondent) filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner from the premises described in the ejectment petition. The petitioner appeared before the court and filed leave to contest as well as written reply. He also filed list of witnesses on 10.04.2010.
6. The petitioner filed application for summoning Iftikhar Hussain as his witness. It is noted that the name of Iftikhar'Hussain is given in the list of witnesses relied upon by the petitioner. On issuance of bailable warrants of Iftikhar Hussain, he appeared before the court on 16.07.2013 and got recorded his statement that he does not want to appear as witness of the petitioner and that he is not concerned whatsoever with the agreement (Exh. R-1 and Ex. R-2), as such, the learned court below let him go.
7. On 22.01.2014, the petitioner again filed application for re-summoning of Iftikhar Hussain with the assertion that said Iftikhar Hussain is personal employee of the respondent and recording of his statement is necessary to reach a just and fair conclusion which was dismissed vide impugned order. Without commenting upon merits of the case qua truthfulness or otherwise of the agreement dated 21.06.2005 or its applicability in order to decide the ejectment petition as it may cause prejudice to the rights of either party, I am constrained to observe that the petitioner did not object to the statement of Iftikhar Hussain when he appeared before the learned court below on 16.07.2013 and refused to give testimony in this case. The petitioner also did not raise the plea that B Iftikhar Hussain is employee of the respondent at that time. After appearance of Iftikhar Hussain before the court on 16.07.2013, the petitioner kept mum for a long period of about six months and then filed the application in question. It is settled law that law does not favour the indolent rather it favours the vigilant. It appears from the conduct of the petitioner that he wants to gain more and more time to prolong the proceedings for as much time as he can. Furthermore, when someone does not want to become a witness or give evidence in favour of any party, there is no law under which the court could compel him to necessarily give his testimony.
8. This ejectment petition has been filed under special law which provides specific period of six months for its disposal but the ejectment petition filed by the respondent on 18.01.2010 is still pending adjudication before the learned Rent Controller. In addition, the impugned order is not a final order against which no remedy of appeal has been provided. It is settled law that where appeal is barred by the legislature, the writ petition is also not maintainable as it will tantamount to defeat the will of the legislature. Reliance is placed on the dictums laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases reported as Muhammad Iftikhar v. Javed Muhammad and 3 others (1998 SCM R 328) and Saghir Ahmad Naqvi v. Province of Sindh and another (1996 SCM R 1165). The order impugned is in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect therein. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts and not helpful to the petitioner.
9. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is without any substance, the same is dismissed.