' A suit for joint possession was instituted by Mst. Sharifan Bibi, Mst. Zainab Bibi and Mst. Murad Bibi, petitioners, against Asghar Ali, respondent No,1, before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jaranwala, on 5-3-1985. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement. However, he did not file a list of witnesses within seven days. As many as five issues, arising out of the pleadings of the parties, were framed by the learned trial Judge on 5-3-1986. An application was moved by the respondent on 17-12-1988 for summoning the witnesses, mentioned therein. The necessary expenses for summoning the witnesses were also deposited by the respondent on 19-12-1988. The application was disallowed by the learned trial Judge on 14-1-1989 on the ground that the witnesses could not be summoned at that stage of the case. The evidence of three witnesses produced by the respondent was recorded on 14-1-1989. Admittedly, evidence of respondent has not been closed so far. Abdul Wahid Lambardar and Sardar Muhammad Khewatdar were not present on the date fixed for recording evidence and as such the evidence was closed under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Qua the said two witnesses on 14-1-1989.
2. According to the learned counsel, this order was never assailed any further. Another miscellaneous application was moved by the respondent on 2-4-1989 for summoning these witnesses when the case was fixed for arguments. The application was dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the same date. Against this order a revision petition was filed by respondent No,1 which was heard and accepted by the learned Additional District Judge on 1-3-1990, holding that recording of evidence of Abdul Wahid Lambardar and Sardar Muhammad Khewatdar was essential for the just decision of the case. Against this order, this Constitutional petition has been moved.
' It is contended by the petitioners that no list of witnesses was filed by respondent No,1 within seven days and as such witnesses could not be produced by him in the case on account of a bar imposed by law. It is argued that evidence of the contesting respondent was closed under Order XVII Rule 3 C.P.C. And in this view of the matter order became final qua the parties. It is submitted that in presence of this order, the respondent cannot be permitted under law to produce witnesses in support of his case. Learned counsel urges that no reasonable cause whatsoever was shown by respondent No,1 for production of additional evidence at such a late stage. It is maintained that the fact that evidence of Abdul Wahid Lambardar and Sardar Muhammad Khewatdar was essential was not at all a consideration under law for recording their evidence.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have read the record with care. I am not convinced with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The application dated 2-4-1989 was moved by the respondent presumably under Explanation-I of Rule 2 of Order XVIII, read with Section 151 C.P.C. Under the said provision of law, the Civil Court has ample powers to summon the witnesses. Expalantion-I is reproduced below for reference:- "Explanation I. Nothing in this rule shall affect the jurisdiction of the Court, of its own accord or on the application of any party, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to direct any party to examine any witness at any stage.
This provision of law gives sufficient powers to the Civil Court to record evidence of any witness at any stage of the suit. This may be done of its own accord or on application of any party for reasons to be recorded therein. Order dated 1-3-1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, shows solid reasons for recording statements of Abdul Wahid Lambardar and Sardar Muhammad Khewatdar. It is mentioned in the order that these two witnesses were the attesting witnesses of mutation. This being so, they were the necessary witnesses in the case. Learned counsel was unable to point out any legal flaw much less jurisdictional defects in the impugned order which of course has been passed in advancement of justice. It is well settled that no writ can issue in aid of injustice. Reliance is placed on Tufail Muhammad and another v. Raja Muhammad Zia Ullah Khan, Claims Commissioner, Lahore an another (PLD 1965 SC 269) and B Federation of Pakistan and others v. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan and others (PLD 1989 SC 166). Respectfully following the rule laid down in the precedent cases Constitutional petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.