IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan 
Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa  
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 1662 OF 2016. 
(On 
appeal 
against 
the 
judgment dt. 15.03.2016 passed 
by the Islamabad High Court, 
Islamabad in C. R. No. 413 of 
2015).  
 
Haji Zarwar Khan through L.Rs.   
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
Haji Rehman Bangash and others.  
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the petitioner(s): 
Mian Shafqat Jan, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sh., AOR (Absent)  
 
For the respondent(s): 
N.R. 
Date of hearing:  
17.06.2016. 
O R D E R  
 
 
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.- This petition for leave to appeal 
has arisen out of the judgment dated 15.03.2016 of the Islamabad 
High Court, Islamabad whereby it allowed the petition filed by the 
respondents and set aside the order dated 8.10.2015 of the Civil 
Judge 1st Class West, Islamabad.  
2. 
 
Learned ASC appearing on behalf of the petitioner 
contended that the judgment rendered in the case of Muhammad 
Anwar and others Vs. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others (PLD 2013 SC 255) 
is not attracted to the case of the petitioners as they never moved 
an application in terms of Rule 2 of Order XVI CPC. The case of the 
petitioners, the learned ASC added, is clearly and squarely covered 
by Rule 7 of Order XVI and Rule 4 of Order XVIII, CPC as they sought 
the persons present in the Court to give evidence. He next 
contended that if the persons present in the Court are not allowed to 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 1662 OF 2016 
2
give evidence except in accordance with Rule 1 of Order XVI CPC, 
Rule 7 shall become redundant. He next contended that the well 
recognized principle of harmonious interpretation requires that all the 
provisions of the Act be so construed that each of them has a 
meaning and none of them becomes redundant.  
3. 
 
We have gone through the record carefully and 
considered the submissions of learned ASC for the petitioner.  
4. 
 
Before we appreciate the arguments addressed at the 
bar by the learned ASC for the petitioner it is worthwhile to refer to 
Rule 7 of Order XVI which reads as under:- 
“16(7).  Power to require persons present in Court 
to give evidence or produce document. Any 
person present in Court may be required by the 
court to give evidence or to produce any 
document then and there in his possession or 
power.” 
 
 
The rule quoted above provides that any person present in 
Court may be required by the Court to give evidence or to produce 
documents then and there in his possession or power. This provision 
does not apply, where the persons present in Court are required by a 
party to give evidence. Therefore, we don’t think this provision in any 
way would help the petitioner. Next comes Rule 4 of Order XVIII. 
Before we appreciate its implication it is also worthwhile to refer 
thereto which reads as under:- 
“18(4).   Witnesses to be examined in open Court. 
The evidence of the witnesses in attendance 
shall be taken orally in open Court in the 
presence and under the personal direction and 
superintendence of the Judge.”  
 
 
The above quoted rule deals with the mode and manner of 
recording evidence. It provides that the evidence of the witnesses in 
attendance shall be taken orally in open Court in the presence and 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 1662 OF 2016 
3
under the personal direction and superintendent of the Judge. It by 
no stretch of imagination provides for examination of witnesses who 
are not mentioned in the list of witnesses. When seen in this context 
the rule does not advance the case sought to be canvassed at the 
bar by the learned ASC for the petitioner nor does it appear to be 
unmeaning or redundant.  
5. 
 
Having thus examined, the view taken by the High Court 
appears 
to 
be 
correct 
and 
thus 
merits 
no 
interference, 
notwithstanding 
the 
learned 
Single 
Judge 
appreciated 
the 
controversy urged before him not by referring to the provisions cited 
above, but by referring to the judgment rendered in the case of 
Muhammad Anwar and others Vs. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others 
(supra). This petition is, therefore, dismissed and the leave asked for is 
refused. However, if the evidence of the witness sought to be 
examined is necessary for the just decision of the case, the 
petitioners may, if so advised, apply before the Trial Court under Rule 
2 of Order XVI CPC. 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
ISLAMABAD 
17.06.2016 
M. Azhar Malik 
 
 
‘Approved For Reporting’