This Writ Petition calls in question an order dated the 12th of January, 1987, of the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, whereby the writ petitioners' revision petition was dismissed.
2.Without giving the entire detail of facts, the petitioner being defendant in the suit made an application to refer the disputed documents to the Finger Prints Expert. An opinion adverse to him was received whereupon he made an application to refer the documents to a private Expert of his own choice. The trial Court dismissed it and he challenged the order in Civil Revision No.23/R-1986 which was dismissed on the 28th of May, 1986. The learned Additional District Judge dealing with the said Revision adopted, among others, an argument that the petitioner "could also obtain an opinion from a private expert at his own costs and produce the same in Court". Taking a one from this observation the petitioner made yet another application before the trial Court for getting opinion of a private Expert. It was dismissed and he preferred once more a revision petition, namely, No.81/10 of 1986, which again was dismissed. The main reason expressed repeatedly against the petitioner by the lower Court was that he could not, in face of the adverse opinion obtained from one Expert, get the documents referred to still a new Expert of his own choice particularly because even the initial reference to the official Expert was made at his own behest. In other words, it was thought that he could not get the same documents examined time and again by various Experts.
3. Before me, it has been stressed that in view of the rule laid down in Muhammad Islam Iftikhar Ahmad and Co. v. Habib Bank Ltd. 1983 CLC 2862, it was open to the petitioner to examine an Expert produced by himself at his own arrangement in the Court and that the only embargo by Order XVI, rule I, C.P.C., was that the Court may not call a witness not mentioned in the list of witnesses to be filed within seven days after framing of issues.
4. Whatever merits of the above contention, my attention has been drawn to the rule laid down in Ghulam Hussain and another v. Malik Shahbaz Khan and others 1985 SCM R 1925 wherein it was enunciated that a Writ may not lie to challenge proceedings arising out of a civil suit. The genesis for this view appeared to be the availability of remedies of the nature of Appeal or Revision etc, in those proceedings. There is no reason not to apply this rule to the present case wherein the same matter had been taken to revisional Court two times by fully availing the remedies allowed by the Civil Procedure Code. Further, reliance was placed upon Manzoor Hussain Shah and 15 others v.
Allah Bachaya Khan and 5 others 1986 CLC Lah. 1813 in which it was held that a writ petition will not lie to challenge an order passed by revisional Court arising out of a civil suit. In fact, the above case was decided by myself and I am bound by my own former decisions sitting as a Single Judge.
Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yusuf Khan PLD 1959 SC (Pak) 9 ruled that a Single Judge may not change his opinion in different cases. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs throughout.