2017 PLP 2227 (YLR)

YAR MUHAMMAD, J.

Through this order I intend to dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 62 of 2014 and 63 of 2014 as they have arisen from same judgment.

2. Petitioner Mohammad Baitham on 14-05-1998 filed suit No.62/98 against the respondents while the respondents on 04-12-1998 also filed Suit No.189/1998 against the said Mohammad Baitham in the Court of Civil Judge Gilgit. The learned trial Judge while proceeding with the suits obtained written statements from the respective defendants, framed issues and accordingly the parties produced their evidence pro and contra in each suit and on completion of the trial the learned counsel for the parties advanced their arguments separately in both the Suits, but the learned trial Court disposed of the suits through his single judgment dated 26-11-2013 vide which Suit No.62/98 filed by petitioner Muhammad Baitham was dismissed whereas the suit No.189/98 filed by the respondents was decreed.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment, petitioner Muhammad Baitham called the same in question through a single appeal filed before District Judge. During pendency of the appeal the learned counsel for petitioner Muhammad Baitham on 05-06-2014 filed an application in the first appellate Court under Rule 27 of Order XLI read with section 151, C.P.C. seeking permission to bring some documents on record. The learned Judge although made the application part of the record but no order regarding accepting or rejecting the application was passed but disposed of the appeal on merit dismissing the same vide his judgment dated 30-6-2014. Having been disappointed from the judgment of the learned first appellate Court, petitioner Muhammad Baitham has called in question the said judgment through the in hand revision petitions.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have minutely gone through the record of the case. During the course of arguments it was discovered at bar that in both the suits the parties independently and separately produced their evidence for substantiation of their respective versions and the learned trial Court too heard arguments in both the suits but disposed of the suits through single judgment, was illegal in the eye of law because without consolidation two or more suits in which evidence has been adduced separately cannot be decided through a single judgment. Suppose that when it was found that the subject matter in both the suits was same, the learned trial Court was required to have consolidated the suits just after framing of the issues and accordingly evidence was recorded in the suit in which the another suit was consolidated and then have to dispose of the suits through a common judgment.

5. The procedural mistakes on the part of the Court and the Counsel for the petitioner not ended here because against the judgment of the learned trial Court the petitioner's counsel filed single appeal before the learned District Judge. The learned first appellate Court without taking any notice with regard to the filing of the single appeal, entertained the appeal and finally dismissed the same through his single judgment dated 30-06-2014 and this very judgment has been made impugned before this Court through the instant two revisions. It was further discovered at bar that during pendency of the appeal before the first appellate Court, the learned counsel for petitioner Muhammad Baitham who was then appellant filed an application under Rule 27 of Order XLI, C.P.C., but the learned first appellate Court without adjudicating the application decided the appeal. The learned Addl. District Judge was legally bound to decide the application first and then had to recourse to the merit of the appeal, resultantly the learned first appellate Court has failed in exercising his jurisdiction causing miss-carriage of justice. These are the admitted mistakes have committed right from the announcement of the judgment by the Court of first instance up to the Court of first appellate Court. In view of the above facts the learned counsel for the parties frankly conceded and submitted that by setting aside the judgments of the learned two Courts below, both the suit may be remanded back to the learned trial Court for fresh decisions.

6. Sometimes despite knowing the procedures and legal implications of a mistake, the Judges take the cases casually resulting in over burdening the poor litigants as happened in this case. Therefore, the learned Courts should avoid while taking judicial matter in casual manner so that the causes pending before them may attain finality once forever avoiding possibility of remand.

7. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 30-6-2014 passed in CFA No.13/2014 by Addl. District Judge Gilgit and the judgment dated 26-11-2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 189/98 passed by Civil Judge Gilgit are set aside. Resultantly, suit No. 189/98 titled "Inayat and 2 others v. Muhammad Baitham" and suit No.62/98 titled "Mohammad Baitham v. Inayat and others" are remanded back to the learned trial Court Danyore for fresh decisions after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties in both the suits. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 11-05-2016. I have noted it with pain that the instant cases between the parties are hanging-fire since 1998 and the persons who are perusing and defending the suits almost have crossed the age of 80 years. The learned trial Judge is therefore, directed to decide both the suits positively within one month from the date 11-05-2016. It is expected that the learned trail Judge shall achieve this target so that fruits of the litigation may be transited to the rightful party. With the above, the Revision Petition No. 62/2014 and Civil Revision No. 63/2014 are disposed of. ZC/34/GB Case remanded.