1. C.M. 81-B of 2015 SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.This is an application filed by the defendants under Order XVI, Rules 1, 2 and 8 for summoning of witnesses mentioned in the said application. All the witnesses named in this application are officials of the plaintiff bank including its President Group Head special assets management and the Chief Manager. Reply to this application has been filed by the plaintiff bank wherein serious objections have been raised regarding the maintainability of this application.
2. In paragraph No,3 of this application it has been stated that the witnesses are required to produce the original record relating to the defendant's case without mentioning the record that each of the witness is required to bring. In. this case the plaintiff bank has already concluded its affirmative evidence. The defendants on their turn have also examined four witnesses whereafter the present application was moved.
3. It is also noted that two of the summoned witnesses i,e. Waseem Ijaz Naqvi and Mehboob ul Hassan have already been examined by the plaintiff bank in its evidence and who have also been cross-examined by the defendants. In Order XVI, Rule 1, C.P.C., the following amendment has been added by this Court which reads as under: Provided that no party who has begun to call his witnesses shall be entitled to obtain process to enforce the attendance of any witness against whom process has not previously issued, or to produce any witness not named in a list, which must be filed in Court on or before the date on which the hearing of evidence on his behalf commences and before the actual commencement of the hearing of such evidence without an order of the Court made in writing and stating the reasons therefor.
4. It is clear from proviso added through this Court's amendment that a party which has initiated its evidence shall not be entitled to obtain process from the Court to enforce the attendance of any witness against whom process has not previously been issued. In this case, the application for summoning of witness was moved after the defendants had examined four witnesses. By virtue of aforementioned provision, the defendants are precluded from summoning the witnesses mentioned in this application.
5. Even otherwise, the defendants have failed to furnish any justification for calling the witnesses who are officials of the plaintiff bank and further have failed to mention the documents the said witnesses are required to produce. The practice of summoning the opposite party as a witness in a civil proceedings has often been deprecated by the Courts (See Mir Ghulam Haider Khan v. Abdul Qayyum (1985 CLC 2741). In Syed Shah Muhammad Hussaini and another v. Khutbuddin and another AIR 1997 Karnatka 223 it was held as under: The plaintiffs have taken a very bold stand. They have summoned the defendants as their witnesses.
6. Indeed it is a very unusual practice and has been condemned by Courts as wholly undesirable. (See Shahtrugan Das v. Sham Das AIR 1938 PC 59). The implication of their actions are that they have to accept their opponents as witnesses of truth.
7. The application on the face of it appears to be vexatious and an attempt to delay the proceedings of the trial. In the result, this application is dismissed.
8. MAIN CASE:
6. Relist on 18.03.2015.