ORDER SHEET
__________________________________________________
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
__________________________________________________
1) For hearing of CMA 9285/2005.
2) For hearing of CMA 5537/2005.
3) For hearing of CMA 8839/2004.
4) For evidence.
(C/A of CMA 5537/2004 and 9285/2005 filed)
(Rejoinder of CMA 9285/2005 filed by the plaintiff.)
(Rejoinder of CMA 5537/2004 filed by the plaintiff.)
28.2.2007.
Muhammad Aslam Hussain plaintiff
present in person.
Mr. Nadeem Pirzada for defendant
No. 2 to 6.
________
It is primarily contended by the plaintiff that his rights have been prejudiced on account of the orders passed in the suit whereby he was not allowed to adduce evidence and produce the documentary evidence which he has received during the pendency of the lis pertaining to the dispute in question. It is further contended by the plaintiff that his side to lead evidence be reopened and he may be allowed to produce evidence in support of his case.
Mr. Nadeem Pirzada learned counsel appearing for defendant No. 2 to 6 has opposed the move of the plaintiff on account of the order passed in the suit dated 28.2.2004 whereby the plaintiff’s request for reopening of the side was declined he was not permitted to adduce his evidence.
It is manifestly clear that suit is pending adjudication from the last more than 10 years and still the evidence of the plaintiff has not been concluded as per the version of the plaintiff, during the pendency of the lis he has secured innumerable documents pertaining to dispute involved in the case. Order XIII rule 2 of CPC is specific in nature, when no documentary evidence was in the possession or power of any party could to be produced in accordance with the requirements of rule 1 which shall be subsequently be received at any stage of the proceedings upon good cause shown by the party to the satisfaction of the court for non production thereof.
Dispute pertains to the assets left by the plaintiff’s deceased brother Muhammad Ashraf Hussain by way of moveable and immovable property. He was an employee of defendant No. 1 at the time of his death. Learned counsel for defendant No. 2 to 6 has invited my attention to the order passed in SMA No. 32/1992 and contended that the share of the plaintiff and that of the defendant No. 2 to 6 have been paid to them by the Nazir of this Court according to the Sharia Law. Subsequent thereof there has been correspondence between the plaintiff and other agencies including the defendant No. 1 pertaining to the issue involved in the case and therefore the plaintiff was not in possession of the documents required to be brought on record in his evidence and instead of lingered on only for the purpose of hearing of listed applications. The plaintiff may be afforded reasonable opportunity for adducing his own evidence by way of production of the documents required to be brought on record as well as of his witnesses.
Taking into all attending circumstances of the case request of the plaintiff is acceded, his side is reopened for the purpose of production of additional evidence subject to the fact that copy of such documents may be provided to the learned counsel for defendant No. 2 to 6 in advance. The plaintiff is further permitted to adduce his witnesses, if any, and their affidavit in evidence should be filed in Court within one month, with further direction that the copy thereof may be supplied to Mr. Nadeem Pirzada learned counsel appearing for defendant No. 2 to 6 in advance. With the above observations all the above listed applications stands disposed off. Orders accordingly.
J U D G E