CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANG IR, J. Through suit under this writ petition, it was averred by the petitioner/plaintif f that her husband being one of the members of the Housing Society/respondent No.4 had applied for allotment of plot, who after due scrutiny was found eligible and on his request, suit plot was allotted to petitioner/plaintif f by accepting certain amount; that thereafter utility connections were also installed on her request:, that in 2007 defendant No.1/r espondent No.3 tried to interfere into the possession of the petitioner compelling her earlier to institute suit for permanent injunction, when it was disclosed that not only vide sale deed dated 25.11.2004, subject plot had been alienated to respondent No.3 by one Ch. Muhammad Khan besides transfer letter was issued and site plan also sanctioned, therefore, the petitioner approached the civil court for the confirmation of her title as well as cancellation of above referred documents, which was contested by the other side. As a result of variant pleadings, initially issues were settled on 02.03.2016, whereas additional issue 9-A was struck on 21.09.2017, but none of the parties filed its list of witnesses within the statutory period at either of the occasion, however , despite said omission, the petitioner subsequently was allowed to summon the Record Keeper of respondent No.4. Thereafter , application tabled by respondent No.3 seeking permission to file list of witnesses was also allowed by the learned trial court on 18th March, 2019, which despite being assailed before the revisional court was not disturbed, compelling the petitioner to approach this court for setting aside of the concurrent orders through this petition.
2. Heard.
3. Leaving aside the merits of the case for a while, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 being the general law had been enacted for the dispensation of substantial justice among the parties to the lis after affording them right of audience. This law has two parts; substantive and procedural. The former part deals with the rights of the litigants, whereas the latter one defines the mechanism of proceedings/trial till its culmination, the utmost object whereof is to foster justice and frustrate hurdles in the administration of justice. When this philosophy of the law makers repeatedly interpreted by the Superior Courts was confronted to learned counsel for the petitioner , he while relying upon case law reported as Muhammad Anwar and others v. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others' (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 255) and 'Haji Zarwar Khan through L.Rs. v. Haji Rehman Bangash and others' (2016 SCMR 1976 ) emphasized that as per Article 189 of the Constitution, the decisions made therein were binding on the subordinate courts, but they erroneously omitted to consider the same through impugned orders while allowing the contesting respondent to submit her list of witnesses despite the fact that it was not only beyond statutory period, but also lacked probable cause. Undeniab ly, the orders in the referred cases were passed by the august Supreme Court while refusing petitions for leave to appeal, which did not lay down the law and could not be termed as decision/judgment having binding effect under Article ibid. See `Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. and another v. Soneri Bank Ltd and another ' (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 322). Moreover , in Haji Zawar's case (supra), while dismissing the petition, the apex court also allowed the applicant to approach the learned trial court through a proper application -under rule 2 of Order XVI of the Code, 1908, meaning thereby the defaulted party was provided another chance to again get a favourable order . It is also pertinent that in case law quoted on behalf of the petitioner , orders were passed by the Hon'ble Benches of the apex court comprising of two Judges each, but earlier to these, a larger Bench of the same court in appeal reported as 'The Australasia Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Mangora Textile Industries, Swat and others' (1981 SCMR 150) had already ruled that if reasonable explanation is given and no prejudice is caused to the opposite-party in its defence and the court is also not unduly inconvenienced, the party's evidence should not be shut out for its failure to tile the list of witnesses within seven days of the framing of the issues. Admittedly , while rendering their views in the cases cited by the learne d counsel for the petitioner , the afore-noted prior verdict of the larger Bench of their court was not appraised to their Lordships. It is also pertinent to note that in another recent case reported as 'Dr. Professor M.A. Cheema, Surge on, PIC, Lahore v. Tariq Zia and others' (2016 SCMR 119), three members of Hon'ble Bench of the apex. court while allowing the appeal, set aside the order passed by this court and restore d that of learned civil court whereby the party was permitted to submit the list of witnesses beyond, the provided period concluding therein that the latter fora was justified in exercising its discretionary jurisdiction. As per well settled principle of law that the judgment delivered by a larger Bench has to be given preference, reliance can be C placed upon case reported as Faiz ur Rehman v. Haji Yaz Mir and 5 others' (2013 YLR 950), hence, the case law relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner with respect deserves to be distinguished. The additional relevant factor for my views would be that the apex court itself in an unreported judgment passed in C.P. No.1278 of 2013 styled `Agha Zahid Ali Hilali v. Muhammad Riaz and others' wherein Muhammad Anwar's case (supra) cited by the petitioner and earlier judgment of the same court styled `Mst. Musarrat Bibi and 2 others v. Tariq Mahmood Tariq' (1999 SCMR 799) were also referred, concluded that omission on the part of counsel for the defaulting party due to his inexperience or lack of understanding, could not be considered a ground to refuse him to summon the witnesses. In such background, when it is admitted that present petitioner was allowed to summon a witness, whose name was cited in the list of witnesses submitted beyond provided days, there was sufficient reason to allow the adversary to submit her list of witnesses. The discretion so exercised in this behalf is neither arbitrary nor whimsical, which indeed has been performed in aid of justice and by doing so, the justice is not only done, but it is seen that it has been done.
4. No case of interference is made out, rather against the order of Revisio nal Court, especially when an interlocutory order of the subordinate fora is affirmed, the Constitutional Petition is not maintainable, hence, the unanimous orders of the learned courts below , which otherwise being based on reasonings are approved and this Petition being meritless is hereby dismissed in limine . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.