Find a Lawyer

-- S. 33 read with Civil Procedure Code (V (' 1908). O. XVIII, r. 4-Pre-emption suit-Evidence recorded in one suit-Copying of (in other)-Evidence (not signed by Judge) virtually copied from another suit between same parties, without their consent-Held, Court should record evidence separately and reliance on such evidence not mere irregularity but major defect of jurisdictional value.

Muhammad Shaft v. Ghulam uhammad 1' L D 1969 Kar. 310 distinguished.

Muhammad Hanif Aryan for Appellant

I have seen the record of the case. The evidence recorded in this case was virtually copied from another suit between the parties. The said evidence was, however, not signed by the learned Civil Judge. There is nothing on the record to show that there was consent between the parties that the evidence recorded in the other case i.e. Civil Suit No. 99/1 of 1974, should be brought on the record of this suit (Suit No. 153/1 of 1974). Muhammad Shafi v. Ghulam Muhammad (1) does not therefore stand attracted to this case. The learned Civil Judge should have, therefore recorded evidence afresh in this case irrespective of the evidence recorded in the connected case. His reliance on the said evidence was not a mere irregularity but a major defect of jurisdictional nature. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Additional District Judge remanding the case to the Civil Judge for recording fresh evidence and for fresh decision in the case is unexceptionable. The F. A. O. is therefore, dismis sed in limine. The record received should be sent back immediately to the trial Court.

K.M.A. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.