1. Facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant constitutional petition are that on filing of an application U/S.151 CPC by the private respondents, certain official witnesses were called by learned trial Court for their examination by way of order dated 06.10.2020; the revision application filed against such order was dismissed, by learned 3 Additional District Judge, Shikarpur , by way of order dated 11.11.2021, which is impugned by the petitioner before this Court by way of instant constitutional petition.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial and revisional Courts ought not to have called the official witnesses for their examination on application filed by the private respondents, which was generalized in its nature, therefore, such order being illegal is liable to be set aside after notice to other side.
3. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
4. Apparently , the examination of official witnesses would cause no harm to either of the party on the contrary their examination would help the learned trial Court to arrive at right conclusion, which is essential for just decision on dispute between the parties. Even otherwise, the right of fair trial for determination of civil/criminal obligation could not be denied to anyone for the reason that it is guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
5. In case of Zar Wali Shah Vs. Yousaf Ali Shah and others (1992 SCMR-1778 ), it has been held by the Honourable Apex Court that; "Even if one or the other party had failed to produce all the material documents and/or failed to request for proper examination of the disputed document/signatures, the Court had ample power to do the needful so as to advance justice rather than injustice. The concept of bar against filling the gaps is no more available in the present Pakistan jurisprudence and the law; including, the precedent law on Islamic principles; which are being made applicablerd progressively to the proceedings before the Courts and other forums which are required to record/admit evidence.
6. See Mian Aziz A. Sheikh v . The Commissioner of Income-T ax PLD 1989 SC 613 ."
7. No illegality or irregularity is pointed out in the impugned order , which may justify making interference with it by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction by way of instant constitutional petition, it is dismissed in limine together with listed applications.