' Mst. Shahnaz Begum and 4 others have filed a suit for recovery of damages against Ashiq Hussain Bhatti and other respondents, which is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Ferozewala. The suit is being contested by the respondents. Issues have been framed. The petitioners led evidence, during the course thereof, they applied to the Court for summoning of Secretary, R.TA. To appear as a witness alongwith the documents of insurance policy and the route permit of the bus involved in the fatal accident. This application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 14-11-1987 mainly on the ground that the name of the witness having not been mentioned in the list of witness, therefore, he cannot be allowed to be summoned through Court. Thereafter when the evidence of the respondents was being recorded, the petitioners again submitted an application on 25-11-1987 for producing the Secretary, R.T.A. As defence witness, on the ground that during the course of cross-examination, recording of the statement of said witness has become necessary. This application was contested and rejected by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 11-1-1988, on the ground that similar application having already been rejected, fresh application is not maintainable. Both the aforementioned orders have been challenged through this Civil Revision.
2. Mr. Zafarullah Khan, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners whereas Mr. GA. Pirzada, Advocate, appeared on behalf of respondent No,
3. None has appeared on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who have been proceeded ex parte.
3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Secretary, R.T.A. Being an official witness, it was the duty of the Court to have summoned him through Court in view of the law declared in case of Mst. Bashir Bibi v. Amin-ud-Din and 9 others (PLD 1973 SC 45) and further that dismissal of the earlier application was not a bar to exercise discretionary jurisdiction at the subsequent stage of the suit in view of the amendment in Order XVIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. Through Notification No, 175.
R/CLY.13, dated the 9th June, 1942 whereby two explanations were added to the Rule, the first whereof is as under:-- "Explanation I---Nothing in this rule shall affect the jurisdiction of the Court, of 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."
' It is hence argued that the learned lower Court while refusing the application on both the occasions has exercised his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity, particularly when the evidence of the witness is necessary for the purpose of just decision of the case. Hence he prays that the Civil Revision may be accepted and the petitioners may be allowed to produce and summon the said witness through Court.
3. As against the above arguments, learned counsel for respondent No, 3 has contended that in view of the fact that the name of Secretary, R.T.A. Is not mentioned in the list of witnesses, the petitioners have no lawful right to get him summoned through Court, in view of the law laid down in M/s. Spencer. & Co. (Pakistan) Ltd. v. M/s. National Agencies (Rawalpindi) Ltd. And 6 others (1984 CLC 3432) and further that the second application besides being delayed is liable to be dismissed as per principles of general res judicata, hence discretionary orders passed by both the Courts are not liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. He has placed reliance on case Shahzada Muhammad Umar Baig v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another (PLD 1970 SC 139).
4. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It is now well established legal proposition, that all the procedures are meant for advancement of cause of justice and not for the purpose of entraping the litigant into a blind corner. Refer following cases:-
(1) Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another (PLD 1975 SC 678),
(2) Mirza All Khan v. Mst. Shahida Parveen and others (1992 SCM R 2112).
In the case in hand, it is not denied that Secretary, RTA sought to be produced, is very important witness, who is in possession of primary documentary evidence, which is relevant to the controversy, to be resolved in the suit. Therefore, merely because his name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses will not be a sufficient ground to bar the jurisdiction of the trial Court to order the witness to be summoned through Court as he could not be produced privately 4nd whose statement will definitely contribute to the just decision of the suit. The petitioners applied for summoning the said witnesses at the earliest which application was dismissed. Said order having been passed in oblivision of the aforementioned legal position is hence arbitrary and whimsical.
Thereafter the petitioners again applied for additional. Evidence at the stage of recording of respondent's evidence. Second application was dismissed under a misconceived notion of the law that the first order bars the entertainment of a second application for additional evidence. The fact of the matter is' that the occasion for leading of additional evidence arises when the evidence is closed, therefore, the application had to be decided independently on its own merits. It appears that the trial Court while dismissing the second application was not even conscious of the provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. As well as extent of jurisdiction vested in the Court for decision of application for additional evidence. Principles of general res judicata are not at all attracted to the facts of the case in hand. Resultantly the exercise of jurisdiction by the lower Courts is illegal and with material irregularity. Case of M/s. Spencer & Co. (Pakistan) Ltd. v. M/s. National Agencies (Rawalpindi) Ltd. And another (1984 CLC 3432) is distinguishable on facts, hence rule laid down therein does not advance the case of the respondent.
5. Examined the case from another angle, it is also well-established legal proposition that law favours adjudication on merits and contested trials after giving full opportunity to the parties, to prove their case. Technical knock is an exception and not a rule. All the procedures are meant for advancement of the cause of justice and are not for the use and purpose of entrapping the litigant to a blind corner. In the case in hand, it cannot be said that the petitioners had been negligent except that they did not mention the name of the witness in the list to be furnished under Order XVI, Rule 1, C.P.C. Petitioner No, 1 is widow of the deceased whereas the other petitioners are minors, therefore, this fact shall also have to be kept in mind while exercising discretion in such like matters.
Consequently, it is a fit case where the petitioners should have been granted at least one opportunity to produce the witness through Court.
6. Resultantly, I accept this Civil Revision, set aside the impugned orders dated 14-11-1987 and 11-1- 1988 and direct that the petitioner shall be given opportunity to produce Secretary, R.T.A. As a witness to be summoned through Court at the petitioner's expenses. This order shall be subject to payment of Rs,500 as costs payable to the respondents. The suit shall be decided within a period of six months with effect from 20th of November, 1994, on which date the parties have been directed to appear before the trial Court.