Malik MUHAMMAD IRSHAD FAIZ vs KHADIM HUSSAIN O — 2026 PLD 488 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Malik MUHAMMAD IRSHAD FAIZ VS KHADIM HUSSAIN O.XVI, Rr.1 & 14---Good cause, absence of---Application to allow submission of list of witnesses beyond prescribed period, dismissal of---Scope---Subsequent application for summoning bank officials / record---Maintainability---Power of Court to summon stranger(s) to suit as witnesses---Object---After dismissal of application of plaintiff for extension of time, second / subsequent application for summoning certain bank officials was filed which was also dismissed---Argument of the petitioner / plaintiff was that the second application was under O.XVI, R.14, C.P.C.; that the object of O.XVI, C.P.C. is that the opposite party is not taken by surprise regarding the witnesses who are to appear against him and not to penalize the litigant, who fails to submit the list within stipulated time---Validity---Order XVI, R.1, C.P.C. contemplates that once the issues are framed, list of witnesses is to be submitted within a period of 07-days and it is for the Court to extend the time, provided sufficient cause is shown---In the present case, an application was moved by the petitioner for submission of list of witnesses beyond the said period, however, the Trial Court found that no good cause had been shown and dismissed the said application---Instead of challenging the said dismissal order, within stipulated period of time, the petitioner / plaintiff filed a second application and prayed that some officials of Bank(s) along with relevant record be summoned---In the second application, the petitioner clearly acknowledged that his earlier application had been dismissed and the dismissal order had not been challenged---Petitioner asserted that the underlying purpose of O.XVI, R.1, C.P.C. is to ensure that no party is taken by surprise at the time of recording of evidence; yet, said very purpose stood negated by the petitioner's own conduct---When the petitioner failed to submit the witnesses list within the statutory period of seven days and the first application for extension of time was dismissed, the proper course available to the petitioner was to immediately challenge that order before the appropriate forum, demonstrating that sufficient cause did indeed exist---Instead of doing so, the petitioner chose a different route and filed an entirely new application seeking summoning of the bank officials individuals whose names were not included even in the list annexed with the first application---When the first application neither contained the names of bank officials nor set out any justification for their production, the subsequent attempt to bring them in through a fresh application, albeit under a different provision, appeared nothing more than an effort to cure the petitioner's own procedural lapses---It is imperative to observe that O.XVI, R.14, C.P.C. is not a device for parties to fill gaps in their evidence; it vests a discretionary suo motu power in the Court, which may be exercised if the Court itself finds a person necessary for effective adjudication even though such person is stranger; it is not intended to compensate for negligence or allow a litigant to expand the record after procedural time limits have expired---In such circumstances, allowing such applications would defeat the statutory discipline of O.XVI, R.1, C.P.C., undermine the requirement of timely disclosure, and open the door for parties to repeatedly repair their omissions---Discretion under O.XVI, R.14 squarely belongs to the Court, which may call any stranger on its own assessment; it cannot be demanded as a matter of right by a party that has failed to comply with R.1 of O.XVI, C.P.C.---Revision petition filed by plaintiff, being merit-less, was dismissed.

Malik MUHAMMAD IRSHAD FAIZ vs KHADIM HUSSAIN O — 2026 PLD 488 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD