' Brief facts out of which present petition arises are that the respondent No,1 filed a suit for recovery of damages/compensation against the petitioner before the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore. The petitioner filed written statement controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues on 1-11-2000:-- Issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs,1, 78, 65,000 alongwith interest from the defendant on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP
(2) What is the effect of preliminary Objection No,1 of the written statement? OPD-1
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD?
(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable under section 45 of the Contract Act? OPD
(5) Relief.
' The learned trial Court after framing the issues directed the parties to submit the list of witnesses within 7 days and the case was adjourned for evidence on 13-1-2001. Respondent/plaintiff No,1 did not submit the list of witnesses within 7 days. The learned trial Court granted several opportunities to respondent/plaintiff No,1 for producing the evidence. Respondent/plaintiff No,1 filed an application under Order XVI, rule 1, C.P.C. After 7 months. The petitioner filed written reply of the application controverting the allegation levelled in the application that application of respondent/plaintiff No,1 is baseless and has been filed after 7 months.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court did not consider the written reply of the petitioner and exercised its discretion arbitrarily without applying its independent mind in mechanical manners. He further submits that under the law, respondent/plaintiff No,1 has to file list of witnesses within 7 days, but respondent No, I submitted list of witnesses after more than 2 months but this fact was not considered by the learned trial Court at the time of deciding the application of respondent No,l. He further submits that respondent No,1 has made concocted story in the application under Order XVI, rule 1, C.P.C. But this fact was also not considered by the learned trial Court, therefore, the learned trial Court committed material irregularity and illegality. In support of his contention, he relied upon (1992 ALD 425 (2)) "Mst.
Zubaida Begum v. District Judge".
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record myself.
4. The application of respondent No,1 was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 24- 10-2002 and the case was adjourned for evidence of respondents for 6-11-2002. Subsequently, the case was adjourned for 15-2-2003 and, thereafter, adjourned for 6-3-2003 and 17-3-2003. The petitioner has filed this revision petition after participating the subsequent proceedings. The learned trial Court has exercised discretion by observing that the law favors adjudication of dispute on merits and contested the trial after giving full opportunity to the parties to prove their case.
Technical knockout is an exception and not a rule. All the proceedings are meant for advancement of cause of justice and are not for use and purpose of entrapping litigant to blind corner. The question of law, has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Australasia Bank Ltd. v.
Messrs Mangora Textile Industries, Swat, and others" (1981 SCM R 150) and laid down the following principle:-- "Coming to the first contention, we are of the view that the considerations relevant for determining the question, whether or not a party had shown good cause for its failure to file a list of witnesses are a plausible explanation by the party, prejudice if any of the opposite-party, and inconvenience to the Court. If a reasonable explanation is given and no prejudice is caused to the opposite-party in its defence and the Court not unduly inconvenienced the party's evidence should not be shut out for its failure to file the list within 7 days of the framing of issues.".
' The Court should be liberal in permitting a party to call the witness not enlisted as per law laid down in "Bashir Ahmad v. Fazal Din" (1994 CLC 1920).
' In view of the what has been discussed above, I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order, therefore, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.