Briefly stated the facts are that Syed Muhammad Iqbal and others filed a suit for mandatory injunction against Syed Habib Ullah Shah and others. During the pendency of that suit statement of Muhammad Ibrahim Shah D.W.5 was recorded on 13-6-1988. On the asking of his client, the present petitioner, had put certain questions to the said witness whereby his credibility was impeached.
Feeling aggrieved of the said questions Syed Muhammad Ibrahim Shah filed an application under section 145 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 for initiating legal proceedings against the present petitioner. Vide order, dated 23-6-1988 the application was rejected. Feeling dissatisfied with the order, dated 23-6-1988, Syed Muhammad Ibrahim Shah/respondent No.3 filed a revision petition which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur who vide order, dated 4-1-1990 accepted the same and remanded the matter to the Civil Judge for passing a fresh order. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, dated 4-1-1990 the instant writ petition has been filed.
2. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
3. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had cross-1 examined the said witness as per instructions and direction of his client. He argued that he stands protected under law for putting such questions whereby the credibility/character of the witness is impeached. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon M. Moosa v. Mahomed and others PLD 1954 Sindh 70.
He has also placed reliance upon Azam Beg Mirza v. Tajammal Hussain and another 1983 PCr.LJ 1476 and Malik Ghias-ud-Din v. Muhammad Saeed PLD 1993 Lah. 509.
4. A perusal of the record reveals that during the cross-examination of P.W.5 Syed Muhammad Ibrahim Shah/respondent No.3 certain questions have been put to him, as per instruction of client, to whom the present petitioner was representing in the trial Court. The said questions were never put by the present petitioner of his own accord or to defame or disgrace the said witness. The action of learned counsel (petitioner) stood covered under, the provisions of Article 144, Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984. This being the factual position the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge has not been passed in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in it. Accordingly writ petition is accepted and the said order, dated 4-1-1990 is hereby set aside.