' Through this Constitutional petition, Muhammad Sharif, petitioner, who is defendant in a civil suit pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kasur has challenged the orders dated 20-4.1992 and 9-6-1992 passed by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur respectively, whereby the respondent was allowed to summon two witnesses through Court. The respondent wanted to produce two official witnesses, namely Patwari in order to prove that there was no report in the `Roznamcha Waqiati' with regard to the mutation in question and Headmaster of the school to bring the record so that birth entry of the respondent could be proved as case of the respondent is that he was a minor at the time of sanctioning the mutation No,586 and therefore, neither any transaction took place nor the mutation sanctioned, reflecting the transfer of the rights in the property in question.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has contended that issues had been framed about two years prior to the moving of the application for summoning of the witnesses and further that the names of the said witnesses had not been mentioned in the list of witnesses, therefore, under the law, learned Civil Judge has no Jurisdiction to allow the summoning of the witnesses, hence the impugned order is illegal and without lawful authority. Learned counsel has further contended that the order passed by the Civil Judge which has been confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge in revision is illegal as no sufficient grounds have been mentioned as to why the respondent who was negligent has been allowed to summon the witnesses through Court.
3. I have perused the record and have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel.
Writ petition has been filed against an order passed in revision by the learned Additional District Judge. Revisional jurisdiction of the District Court is concurrent with that of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Although in certain situations a writ petition is competent against revisional order as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a judgment reported as Muhamamd 7.Ahoor and another v. Lal Muhammad and 2 others 1988 SCM R 322 yet exercise of writ jurisdiction against revisional order has to be exercised in very rare and exceptional circumstances only when it could be said that the order passed by the revisional Court has been passed without lawful authority. Interim orders like granting permission to summon the witnesses which are of a discretionary nature and which have been passed to advance the cause of administration of justice cannot be said to have been passed without a lawful authority. Learned Civil Judge had' the jurisdiction to pass the order in exercise of his jurisdiction. No arbitrariness or perversity in passing of the impugned orders has either been alleged or proved. Mainly because a name of the witness is not mentioned in the list of the witnesses is not a ground to urge that the learned trial Court shall cease to have jurisdiction to summon the official witness through Court, particularly, when there is no other mode for summoning of the official witness except through the assistance of Court. Even otherwise, fragmentary decisions of interim nature cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction as held in a judgment reported as 'Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain PLD 1975 457. It has been held by their Lordships that allowing the challenging of interim order through a writ would delay the decision of cases and this cannot be allowed in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. Even otherwise, the petitioner shall have a right to raise all the objections available under the law against interim order after the main lis is decided. Hence it cannot be said that it is a case where the petitioner does not have an alternate and efficacious remedy to challenge the impugned orders. Amendments under the Code of Civil Procedure whereby revisional jurisdiction has been conferred upon District Courts meant to finalize the issues decided by the District Courts at that level and bar of second revision before the High Court is aimed at discouraging the. Litigants to prolong the agony of their opponents. In case, an order which cannot be challenged in revision is allowed to be challenged in writ that would amount to circumventing the law and allowing the frustration of the statute.
' I have gone through the record. I find that the order is quite just and lawful and hence no fault can be found therewith. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.