Find a Lawyer

GHULAM MUSTAFA versus ABDUL MALIK

A. XVIII, Rr 8 and 14 Evidence, the scope of recording of the substance of the evidence material The applicant's complaint of evidence was that the trial court's presiding officer did not record the evidence in his hand, nor did the evidence Made no memorandum of substance nor did he record any reason for his failure to record the memorandum effect, unless the evidence was taken in writing by the judge, which was binding under the OXVIII CPC, when each When the witness's inspection proceeded, a memorandum was to be written by the judge to memorize each witness's dismissal case and Such a mandatory clause was to be made a part of the card and it should be strictly prohibited and followed, so that the judge should know the testimony given by the witnesses, so that misunderstanding or misinterpretation Any opportunity of This; O XVHI, R 14 CPC noted that if the judge fails to make the memorandum as required, he will cause to record the reasons for such failure and in writing to the open court the memorandum Will make. Make it a part of the record and it was mandatory, responsible and obligatory for the court to record the reasons for failing to make the memorandum unless necessary work could not be treated as part of that record. The provisions of were not followed. Therefore, the testimony of the witnesses could not be treated as part of the record but, as such, the evidence was misread as the court had to keep the certificate of testimony given by me at the end of the testimony. There was not enough compliance. top advocates from Kunri lawyer