' Respondent No, 1 filed a suit for declaration that he was a legitimate son of one Muhammad alias Muhammad Khan and ancestors of the petitioners, For non-submission of the list of witnesses within seven days from the date of framing of issues as required under Order XVI, rule 1, C. P. C., his evidence was closed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26-5-1977. His revision was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala on 9-3-1978 on his Constitutional Petition No, 1995 of 1978, the orders quashed on 16-1-1983 in view of the judgment of the Full Bench reported as Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Ilyas and 3 others (1), and the case was remanded to the trial Court for further proceedings in accordance with law. When it was taken up by the learned trial Court and the respondent No, .1 wanted to produce documentary evidence, the petitioners objected thereto in view of the earlier order of the trial Court under Order XVII, rule 3, C. P. C., dated 17-5-1979 by which the documentary evidence to be produced by the respondent was closed. The objection was, however, overruled by the learned trial Court on 27-10-1984. The petitioners challenged this order by means of a revision petition which has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order, dated 28-3-1985. Hence this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the two Courts below were in error in interpreting the order of the High Court in the aforementioned writ petition because that had only set aside the order closing the oral evidence of the respondent for non-submission of the list of witnesses and the High Court had not set aside the order, dated 17-5-1979 by which the respondent's right to produce documentary evidence was also closed and that this order was rightly passed which was not challenged by the respondent either.
3. When the respondent was debarred to produce evidence because of non-submission of list of witnesses and that order had been set aside, the effect thereof would be that the respondent would be entitled to produce his evidence and he could produce oral as well as documentary evidence. He could produce the witnesses who may give oral testimony or may produce the documents. In view of the earlier decision of the D. B. Of this Court he could not be refused to produce a witness who may produce a document in turn. Therefore, if the two Courts below have come to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to produce both oral as well as documentary evidence, their decisions cannot be said to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
4. In view of what has been stated above, there is no force or merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.