In this writ petition, it is complained that the petitioner's witness who was present in Court was not examined for the reason that his name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses. This is vide, order of the learned trial Court, dated 24-2-1986. It is contended that that is against the law. Reliance is placed on Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Ilyas and 3 others PLD 1980 Lah.
495.
2. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent No,2 states that he has no objection if the petitioner's witness is examined. He, submits that the petition may be allowed and the learned trial Court may be directed to conclude the hearing of the suit for maintenance of a minor filed by the respondent No, 2.
3. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The order of the learned trial Court, dated 24-2- 1986 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has to produce the witness who was not earlier allowed and has to get the statement-of the petitioner recorded before the learned trial Court and that is all. Learned counsel for the respondent No,2 states that he has already produced evidence on behalf of the respondent. Only one day would be required for reconciliation efforts. In this view of the matter, it appears that hardly there will be two hearings necessary for the disposal of the case.
Even if more are required, the case can be finished within a short span of time. Therefore, it is directed that the learned trial Court shall finally dispose of the case within the next two months. The petition is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.