Suit should have been independently recorded; the witnesses in each case should have been separately

In “KHUSHI MUHAMMAD v. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF” (2008 YLR 362) also the proposition supra was reiterated. In “MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another v. IMAM BAKHSH and two others” (1980 SCMR 879), the August Supreme Court was pleased to observe as below:-

“5…Facing this difficulty learned counsel for the petitioners firstly argued that the three suits in this case were not tried in accordance with any correct legal procedure. He submitted that evidence was recorded only in one suit, and copies of the statements of the witnesses were then placed in the other two suits after initials of the learned civil Judge. He submitted that each suit should have been separately tried; the evidence in each suit should have been independently recorded; the witnesses in each case should have been separately examined three times, and the consolidation of evidence in one file in the manner above explained was all illegal. The contention raised has no merit. The trial continued for a period of about three years, and during all that long period no objection of the present kind was raised before the learned civil Judge. This implies that the procedure aforesaid was adopted with the consent of the parties who were duly represented by their respective counsel. The point was not raised either in the memorandum of appeal or at the time of arguments before the learned Additional District Judge and in these circumstances the High Court refused to attach any importance to the same. We agree with the High Court that on the facts in the peculiar circumstances of this case, it was too late to raise this plea before the High Court and we should say now before this Court, when in the relevant Courts below the mode of recording evidence and maintaining the record was not objected to at any stage. The defendants cross-- examined the witnesses of the plaintiffs; they produced their own witnesses in rebuttal and also led documentary evidence in support of their case and at no stage expressed any grievance of the technical kind, which is now being pressed before us. The contention raised in the circumstances cannot be accepted.”

Used in Judgement of
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision-Civil Revision (against Decree)-Und...
472-18