Examination of witnesses

2019 YLRN 32 SHARIAT-APPELLATE-BENCH-AZAD-JAMMU-AND-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Examination of witnessScopeDiscretion would lie with the prosecution to examine the witnesses of its own choice

Prosecution could not be compelled to examine each and every witness who had been cited or not.

2019 CLC 1392 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XVIII, Rr. 8 & 14Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12Suit for specific performance of contractExamination of witnessesMemorandumScopeMemorandum, when evidence was not recorded by the JudgeProcedureLocal Commission while recording evidence of witnesses of defendants did not perform his job honestly

Replies of said witnesses during cross-examination were recorded against the gist as well as substance of statement-in-chief

Court was bound to follow the law and proceed with the trial as per procedure laid down in C.P.C.

If Judge was unable to make memorandum then he should record reasons of his inability to record evidence

Memorandum so made should form part of record of the Court

Oral evidence, in the present case, was recorded by the Local Commission but same was not signed or sealed by the Judge

Agreement to sell having been scribed on the plain paper was received in evidence

Trial Court was bound to impound the said agreement

Trial Court had acted in perfunctory manner

Evidence recorded without following the mandatory procedure could not be treated as part of record of the suit

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside

Suit filed on behalf of plaintiffs should be deemed to be pending before the Trial Court who was directed to examine the witnesses of the parties himself and decide the same afresh within a period of six months

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

2018 PLD 28 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 133Examination of witnessesDefence calling a prosecution witness as its own (defence) witnessLegality

Such practice was not acknowledged by law and could not be approved.

2016 CLC 1672 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 4Suit for partition/administration-Estoppel, doctrine of­ApplicabilityExamination of witnessPrinciplePlaintiff, daughter 'of deceased from his earlier marriage claimed her share in suit propertyPlaintiff placed her birth certificate and gift deed executed by predecessor of parties in her favourDefendant had assailed birth certificate of plaintiff before relevant forum but later withdrew the same

Defendant was estopped to raise that plea again challenge to which had been withdrawn by him-Gift deed by predecessor of parties in favour of plaintiff had never been independently challenged even the witness producing the document was not cross-examined

Effect

When a fact deposed during cross-examination had not been properly checked, it was deemed to be accepted

Mother of defendant was alive and was not produced at the time of recording evidence

Best evidence had been withheld by defendant

Suit of plaintiff stood decreed.

2016 CLC 322 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. VII, R. 2, O. VI, R. 4 & O. XVIIIQanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.70, 72 & 130Suit for recoveryPleadingsNecessary particulars and details not set in plaintExamination of witnessesBurden of proofProof of facts by oral evidenceOrder of production and examination of witnesses

Plaintiff filed suit for recovery claiming that defendant had damaged his crops, which was dismissed by Trial Court; whereas, appellate court decreed the same

Validity

Plaintiff had neither mentioned time nor names of persons who witnessed the occurrence, to prove as to when and before whom the defendants had damaged his crop

Registration number of tractor, whereby the crops were alleged to have been damaged by ploughing, was also not mentioned in the plaint

Plaintiff himself and his son alone had appeared as witnesses, and no independent witness had been produced by plaintiff to substantiate his version

Contradiction on major points were apparent in statements of plaintiff witnesses, and the same were lacking necessary details

Onus probandi was on plaintiff to prove his case positively, but he had failed to discharge the same by not producing convincing and independent evidence

Plaintiff could not benefit from weaknesses of the case of defendant

Question of disproof or rebuttal would come only when plaintiff had established his case through positive evidence; and, when plaintiff had failed to prove his case, then defendant was not obliged to lead any evidence

Appellate court, discarding the reason recorded by Trial Court, had passed impugned judgment and decree on erroneous premises

High Court, setting aside judgment and decree of appellate court, restored that of trial court

Revision petition was accepted in circumstances.

2016 CLC 322 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XVIIIQanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.130 & 72Examination of witnessesOrder of production and examination of witnessesBurden of proof

Question of disproof or rebuttal would come only when plaintiff has established his case through positive evidence; and, when plaintiff has failed to prove his case, then defendant is not obliged to lead any evidence

Plaintiff cannot be benefitted from the weaknesses of the case of defendant.

1982 SCMR 1200 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. XVI, rr. 1 & 2-Examination of witnesses-Leave to appeal Whether bar contained in O. XVI, rr. l & 2 relates to witnesses intended to be called through Court and not regarding witnesses brought by a party with him on date fixed for recording his evidence-Case, held, requires, examination-Leave to appeal granted.-[Witness].