1. ' Suleman, was owner of land in dispute (2 Kanals). On 26-3-1976, this property was donated by him to the defendants 1 to 4. Donation was made by a registered deed. Nematullah and others claimed that they had superior right of pre-emption, and, instituted a civil suit in the- Court of Civil. Judge, Sahiwal. It was alleged that suit property was sold and in order to stave off the plaintiffs' right of pre-emption a false colour of gift was given to the transaction. Necessary issues arising between the parties were formulated by the trial Court on 20-3-1979 and the suit was postponed for plaintiffs' evidence. On 1-10-1983, the statement of plaintiffs was recorded but he could not be cross-examined as the defendants' counsel Mr. Asghar Hamid, had, suddenly, to leave for Abbottabad to attend the funeral of his nephew. Cross-examination, therefore, was reserved and the suit was adjourned for the aforesaid purpose to 10-10-1983. On the adjourned date when the suit was called on for hearing, senior counsel i.e. Mr. Asghar' Hamid, was stated to be busy in the Court of learned Additional District 4udge in connection with his professional engagements. Trial Court waited for sometime but then expressed its opinion that defendants I wished to delay and prolong the proceedings in the civil suit and closed the defendants' right to cross-examine the plaintiffs. Defendants applied for review and tried to explain their lapse. Court was not -Satisfied and dismissed the review petition on 14-3-1984. After having unsuccessfully invoked revisional jurisdiction and failed before learned District Judge Sahiwal, on 27-2-1985, have preferred this petition in equitable constitutional jurisdiction.
2. ' Counsel have been heard and the relevant material has also been examined.
3. ' It may be .Noticed that the defendants had earlier purchased considerable property, on 11-3-1976 through two separate registered deeds of sale. Against the purchases, plaintiffs also brought two separate suits. These suits which were between same parties, were proceeding to trial simultaneously in the same Court where the present suit out of which the petition has arisen was also pending. Learned trial Judge, had also passed similar orders in the other two suits, which were objected to in revisional jurisdiction before this Court in civil revisions 158 and 159 of 1985. Both the revisions were allowed by me on 20-5-1985 and defendants' right to cross-examine was restored.
4. The case under consideration does not present different features. Since the value of subject- matter of suit in this case was below Rs,50,000 revision was taken to the Court of learned District Judge. This petition, like civil revisions aforenoticed, raises a short legal point, whether the learned Judge in the circumstances of the case was right in foreclosing right of cross-examination. In my opinion 'Not'. Reasons for the expression of this opinion are found in my order, dated 20-5-1985 passed in civil revision 158 of 1985. Those reasons equally apply to this case. Therefore, it would not serve any useful purpose to reiterate the grounds which weighed with me in causing interference with the orders of the trial Court. One thing is sure that consistency must prevail. Petition, accordingly, is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the defendants' right to cross-examine the plaintiffs is restored. However, exercise of this right shall be subject to payment of Rs,200 as costs to the opposite side. Parties have been directed to appear before the trial Court on 29-3- 1986.