ORDER SHAIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J. -- Instant writ petition under Article 199 >>f the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. 1973 is directed against the orders dated 24.3.1999. 23.4.1999 and 9.7.1999 passed by the Courts below'.
Briefly stated the facts are that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for administration of estate of his deceased son Saeed Ahmad which was pending in the Court of R.I Nazir Ahmad. Civil Judge.
Lahore. On 24.3.1000 the matter was fixed for recording statement of defendant/respondent Mst.
Tanzeela Bano. When her brother Muhammad Javal appeared as her attorney am1 recorded his statement as DW-2. Learned counsel tor the plaintiff/petitioner was asked to cross-examine the said witness. He refused to cross-examine the said witness on the ground that Mst. Tanzeela Barn had not appeared in the Court to record her statement. His objection was turned down and he was asked by the Court to cross-examine the said witness. He /learned counsel for the plaint it t'/pet it inner) was further informed that he should cross-examine the said witness (DW-2) and if the Court found necessary Mst. Tanzeela Bano he examined as a Court witness However, learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner did not cross-examine the said witness and consequently his right of cross- examination was closed In the Trial Court. Upon this plaintiff/petitioner moved an application 8A 1999 wherein he stated that he never refused to cross-examine DW-2. Hut simply objected his authority to appeal as witness and prayed that his right to cross-examine he restored. This application was contested hy the other party and was finally dismissed vide order dated 23.4.1999.
The plaintiff/petitioner felt aggrieved of orders dated 24.3.1999 and 23.4.1999 and filed a revision petition. The said revision petition was also dismissed vide order dated 9.7.1999. The plaintiff/petitioner has now challenged all the three orders dated 24.3.1999. 23.4.1999 and 9.7.1999 hy means of instant writ petition and has prayed that the same he set aside.
3. Arguments have been heard am1 record perfused.
4. Contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner is that both die Courts below have not passed the impugned orders in accordance with law. He submits that on 9.3.1999 the Trial Court had adjourned the matter to 24.3.1999 for recording statement of Mst. Tanzeela Bano. That on 24.3.1999 Mst. Tanzeela Bano did not appear and produced Muhammad Javed. That only the authority of Muhammad Javed to appear as DW-2 was challenged and had never refused to cross-examine him. He submits that plaintiff/petitioner cannot be penalised for any negligence on the part of his counsel. Regarding maintainability of writ petition has relied upon Mst. Anwar Vs. Imam Din and another (1997 M LD 461).
5. A perusal of record reveals that on 24.3.1999 the matter was fixed tor recording statement of Mst.
Tanzeela Bano, when her brother DW-2 Muhammad Javed appeared as her attorney and recorded his statement. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner was asked to cross- examine the said witness hut he refused to cross-examine the said witness on the ground that as Mst. Tanzeela Bano had not appeared so he would not cross-examine the witness. Upon this Trial Court directed the learned counsel that he should cross-examine the witness and if the Court found necessary Mst.
Tanzeela Bano may he examined as Court witness. Even then he did not cross-examine the witness. Accordingly Trial Court was constrained to close the right of cross-examination and adjourned the case for arguments. The matter was again agitated hy the plaintiff/petitioner on 8.4.1999 through an application wherein he asserted that he never refused to cross-examine hut simply challenged the authority of DW-2 to appear as her attorney and submitted that his right to cross-examine he restored'. This submission did not find favour with the Trial Court as well as revisional Court and consequently his prayer was declined vide orders dated 23.4.1999 and 9.7.1999. All these facts clearly show that Trial Court had granted maximum latitude to enable the learned counsel to cross-examine DW-2, but he failed to encash said opportunity.
6. The upshot of above discussion is that impugned orders have been passed by the Courts below in exercise of jurisdiction vested in them and these orders do not suffer from any illegality .Or irregularity warranting the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that the Trial Court shall not be influenced by this order while disposing the matter on merits.