' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioners, seek leave to appeal against common judgment dated 23-6-2000, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revisions Nos.2033 and 2034 of 1990.
2. We had heard the learned counsel for the parties on 23-6-2004 and had disposed of both the petitions. However, while dictating the judgment, we felt that the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners, made at the Bar did not reflect the correct position. Therefore, both the matters, were set down for rehearing today.
3. The relevant facts of these cases are that late Mustqeem predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, and respondent No,2, filed two separate suits challenging two different sale-deeds in favour of the respondent No,1 in respect of the suit property. The suits were tried by the Civil Court separately without being consolidated. The civil suits were decreed in favour of the predecessors,- in-interest of the petitioners,, by separate judgments and decrees, dated 17-3-1988 passed by the Civil Judge, Sheikhupura. The respondent No,1 in each case preferred separate appeals thereagainst which were accepted by the Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, by judgment dated 19-6-1990 on the ground that in the absence of consolidation of the suits the evidence recorded in one case could not be read in an other case. The petitioner filed Civil Revisions Nos.2033 and 2034 of 1990 which were dismissed by the impugned judgment, dated 23-6-2000, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Hence these petitions for leave to appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that no prejudice had been caused to the respondents in considering the statement of the witnesses in both the cases although recorded in one case. Reliance was placed on the case of Harinarain Choudhary and others, v. Ram Asish Singh and others, AIR 1957 Pat.
124.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No,1 in each of the petitions submitted that the suits filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, were not consolidated nor the respondent No,1 Khushi Muhammad or Rukan Din had acquiesced or consented to the procedure adopted by the trial Court.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the relevant record. Admittedly, the suits filed by Late Mustqeem predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners,, were not. A consolidated by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners, was not able to satisfy us as to how the remand of the case by the First Appellate Court was illegal. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances, the evidence recorded in one case may not hold good for the other case. The trial Court did not give any special reasons as to why it was not practicable or convenient to record the evidence in both the cases separately. Reference may usefully be made to the cases of Nur Elahi v. The State PLD 1966 SC 708, Shabbir and others, v. Mst.
Ghulam Fatima 1987 CLC 1407 and Muhammad Younis v. The Crown PLD 1953 Lah.
321. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. These are not fit cases for grant of leave to appeal.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these petitions which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.