The instant revision petition is arising out of order dated 30.01.2020, passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class Islamabad-West, wherein right of the defendant to record statement of his witness namely Dr. Abrar Ahmed was declined with the direction to produce documentary evidence till the next date of hearing.
2. Relevant facts are that the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan ('respondent') on 19.02.2016 filed suit for the recovery of NZD- 175,598 against petitioner (Ms. Saima Ejaz) and Ijaz Hussain Shah. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement. The Trial Court out of divergent pleadings of the parties framed issues on 30.04.2018. The respondent concluded its evidence on 07.03.2019. The examination-in-chief of DW-1 was recorded on 11.09.2019 while the cross-examination was conducted on 14.09.2019. The petitioner then filed an application for summoning of a Record Keeper followed by another application for recording of statement of a witness through video link which were dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2019 and 06.01.2020 respectively.
3. On 30.01.2020 when one of the witne sses of the petitioner namely Dr. Abrar Ahmad entered appearance for recording of statement, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintif f objected being an attempt to fill in the lacuna emerged during cross-examination of DW-1. The learned trial Court heard the arguments and proceeded to hold that the said witness (Dr.Abrar Ahmad) cannot appear as a witness before the Court. The defendants were directed to submit their documentary evidence till the next date of hearing; otherwise their right to file the same shall be closed. Thus, right of the petitioner to adduce oral evidence was closed, being impugned through instant revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that law favour adjudication on merits instead of technical knockout; that petitioner cannot be debarred from examination of his witness, cited in the list of witnesses and that the statement of the proposed witness is essential to substantiate assertion of the petitioner, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that petitioner is using delaying tactics just to prolong the proceedings on one pretext or the other, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard, record examined.
7. Record reveals that issues in this case were framed on 30.04.2018 while the respondent concluded its evidence on 07.03.2019. The examination-in-chief of DW-1 was recorded on 11.09.2019 but he was cross- examined on 14.09.2019. Before producing the second witness, the petitioner filed two miscellaneous applications simultaneously, which were dismissed. Thereafter petitioner attempted to get examined a witness namely Dr. Abrar Ahmed. It is an admitted position that name of the person, sought to be examined is included in the list of witnesses. The other side will, of course has a right to cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner. However, the conduct demonstrated by the petitioner appears to be deserving some penalty therefore, by recognizing principle that law favours adjudication on merits instead of technical knockout, the petitioner is afforded absolute last opportunity to produce his entire oral as well as documentary evidence on the date to be fixed by the learned Trial Court subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent. It is clarified that in case petitioner fails to comply with the direction ibid, the concession extended by way of this order shall be deemed to have been recalled.
8. The instant revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. Copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for information and compliance.