“12. For the argument that as the second attesting
witness of the agreement was the son of the respondent, therefore, the appellant cold not take the risk of
examining him, it may be held that as ordained above
the mandatory provisions of law had to be complied and
fulfilled and only for the reason or the perception that
such attesting witness if examined may turn hostile does
not absolve the concerned party of its duty to follow the
law and allow the provisions of the Order, 1984,
relating to hostile witness take its own course. Before
parting it may be mentioned that the judgment reported
as Abdul Wali v. Muhammad Saleh (1998 SCMR 760)
which find mention in the leave granting order is not
relevant for the proposition in hand as it relates to a
document before the enforcement of the Order, 1984
when Article 17 was not there.”
Used in Judgment of
Lahore High Court
Civil Rev. Against Decree
784-D-06
2018 LHC 3056
0 comments:
Post a Comment