| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 2194 2022 SLD 2194 2022 MLD 1784 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 21779 of 2017, decided on 3rd March, 2022
SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Writ Petition No. 21779 of 2017, decided on 3rd March, 2022
SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
NAZAR ABBAS
VS
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and another
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 6-A
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.II, R.6-A---Consolidation of suits ----Petitioner instituted suit for declaration challenging mutation against the respondent, whereas respondent instituted a suit for specific performance agreement with regard to land in disputed khata---Both parties contested each others suit---Both suits were consolidated and consolidated issues were farmed---Both parties adduced their evidence in support of their respective contentions and had closed their evidence, whereas respondent also closed her evidence in rebuttal---Later on, respondent produced three witnesses but on an objection raised by the petitioner, Trial Court refused to record evidence of the said witnesses---Revisional Court accepted the revision and declared that the right of rebuttal of evidence of respondent in second suit was still open----Held, that in case of similar issues in different suits, suits would be consolidated and decided conjointly on the basis of consolidated trial---In the present case after considering facts of both suits Trial Court consolidated the suits and respondent was treated as plaintiff, whereas petitioner was designated as defendant---Respondent/plaintiff produced her affirmative evidence in support of her contentions and after evidence of petitioner/defendant, respondent/ plaintiff after submitting cancellation report with regard to FIR closed her evidence in rebuttal, meaning thereby, respondent / plaintiff availed of her right to produce affirmative as well as rebuttal evidence in both suits and she could not reopen the case in the garb that rebuttal evidence in connected suit instituted by petitioner was not recorded---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Jhanda through Legal Heir v. Muhammad Younas reported as PLD 1994 Lah. 100 rel. Rana Muhammad Naeem Khan for Petitioner. Shahid Mehmood Khan Khilji for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 3rd March, 2022. JUDGMENT SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.----Tersely, the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration challenging the vires of Mutation No.3234 dated 09.09.2010 against the respondent No.2; whereas the respondent No.2 instituted a suit for specific performance ofโฆ
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492