MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J --- Through this single order, I propose to decide all these Writ Petitions. Nos. 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202 all of 2012, as common question of facts and law are involved in these petitions.
2. These writ petitions were directed against the orders dated 6.7.2011 and 8.12.2011 passed by learned respondents Nos. 8 and 9 respectively, whereby the application and revision petition filed by the petitioners for re-recording of the examination-in-chief of the P.Ws. Were rejected, hence these writ petitions.
3. The brief facts involved in the cases are that the predecessor- in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 and 3 filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief against the present petitioner and respondents Nos.4 to 7. The petitioner and respondents filed their independent written statements and from the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. During the pendency of this suit, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner namely Hakim A.I died and the present respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were impleaded as plaintiff. The matter remained pending for a long time however on 9.4.2011, the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded but no one was in attendance on behalf of the present petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, therefore, after recording the examination-in-chief of three P.Ws., the right for cross-examination was reserved. The petitioner filed the applications for re-recording the examination in-chief of the P.Ws. But the same were dismissed and revision petition filed by the present petitioner were also dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in all the cases, the verbatim evidence in each case was not recorded independently, which is a glaring irregularity, hence the same is not sustainable in the eye of law and direction may be issued to the learned Trial Court to record the examination-in-chief in each case independently. On Court query, that what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to offer any judicious argument to satisfy this Court. Since it is mere procedural irregularity which is curable under Section 99 of CPC. Even otherwise, the petitioner has every right to cross-examine the witnesses and in that way could sift out the truth whereas the repetitive exercise of re-recording evidence in each case will not serve any beneficial purpose. The petitioner is trying to take shelter behind technicalities whereas on the point of substantive justice, he has failed to point out any prejudice caused to him by alleged irregularity of procedure and not jurisdictional in nature. I am fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Ahmed Din and others Vs. Mst. Nawab Bibi (1980 SCM R 873), Nisar Ahmed Khawaja Vs. Muhammad Usman Muhammad Khan Wasan (1980 SCM R 723).
5. In this view of the matter, these petitions have no merits and dismissed accordingly. .