13/04/2026
P L D 2024 Supreme Court 976
--Practice of calling the defendant as a witness to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff---Propriety---In the present case, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction, and then applied for a summons to be issued to the first defendant (respondent), as their witness---Trial Judge declined the application, and his order was first upheld by the Appellate Court and then by the Revision Court---Validity---In the facts of the present case, if the first defendant fails to appear in the witness box, allowing the plaintiffs to compel her presence by the issue of a witness summons, would be an objectionable practice---Such a practice places the examination and cross-examination of a witness in the wrong hands, hinders fair trial, and obstructs justice---At the same time, it is also a bad practice for parties to refrain from entering the witness box when they are in a position to give personal evidence---Therefore, the first defendant in the suit, giving rise to the present petition, is expected to provide personal testimony in support of her case---If she does not appear without sufficient cause, it will amount to suppression or withholding of evidence, and the Court will be entitled to draw an inference against her----No infirmity was found in the orders of the Courts below, thus, the same were upheld by the Supreme Court---
ORDER
---In a suit for declaration and injunction, the plaintiffs (petitioners herein) applied for a summons to be issued to the first defendant, Mst. Saima Saeed, as their witness. The Trial Judge declined the application, and his order was first upheld by the Appellate Court and then by the Revision Court. It is these orders that have given rise to this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
2. The Courts' refusal is supported by the observations of the Privy Council in Kishori Lal v. Chunni Lal (31 All. 116 at page 122). Their Lordships of the Privy Council have referred to the practic.
