1. ' In brevity, facts of the case are that petitioner instituted a declaratory suit against Respondent No, 1 before the learned Trial Court on 13.8.2008, which after facing contest by the rival party, settled issues on 23.2.2010, but despite its direction, petitioner omitted to file list of witnesses, to be examined before the Court within the specified period. Then after elapse of considerable period on 09.01.2012, petitioner tabled an application seeking permission to file list of witnesses, but the same was turned down by learned Trial Court vide order dated 4.7.2012, which was congealed by the learned Lower Revisional Court as well as this Court when civil revision and Writ Petition No, 32315/2014 were also dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner brought some witnesses for getting their statements recorded before the learned Trial Court, which through order dated 10.7.2013 refused to examine them and only allowed the petitioner to get her statement recorded. Being dejected, a civil revision was preferred by petitioner, which was dismissed by learned . Addl. District Judge through impugned order dated 11.11.2014. Now the petitioner is before this Court for seeking permission to produce her witnesses while setting aside of orders passed by learned two Courts below.
2. 2.The main contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner that as per Order XVI Rule 7 and Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 petitioner required examination of the witnesses produced by her in the Court and the Courts, below erred in law while refusing to examine the said witnesses is not tenable. The identical preposition after referring afore referred provision has already been addressed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the recent judgment reported as "Haji Zawar Khan through L.R8 V8. Haji Rehman Bangash and others" (PLJ 2016 SC 724) to the following effect: "The rule quoted above provides that any person present in Court may be required by the Court to give evidence or to produce documents then and there in his possession or power. This provision does not apply, where the persons present in Court are required by a party to give evidence.
3. Therefore, we don't think this provision in any way would help the petitioner."
4. 3.In view of the above dicta, there left nothing to further dilate upon the matter when it has already been concluded by the apex Court that Rule 7 of Order XVI of the Code ibid can be invoked by the Court itself qua the person present in the Court to give evidence or to produce documents, but the same provision does not apply where the person present in the Court was required by the party to give evidence. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that both the learned Courts below were quite perfect in dismissing the prayer of the petitioner for examining the witnesses brought by her as she failed to submit list of witnesses within the stipulated period and the application tabled by her for bringing on record the said list of witnesses beyond the prescribed period was already dismissed upto the level of this Court. The impugned orders are neither coram non judice nor ultra-wires and the learned counsel for the petitioner has remained unable to point out any illegality committed by learned Courts below while passing the impugned orders to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
5. 4.Sequel of the above discussion is that the instant constitutional petition being devoid of any merit and force is dismissed.