' Claiming to be the owners of the disputed land fully described in the plaint and asserting that the respondent has illegally obtained its possession who was liable to be dispossessed, the petitioners-plaintiffs instituted their suit to obtain a decree for possession in respect of the same.
According to the petitioners the respondent was not willing to part with the possession of the disputed property and that hence the suit. The suit was resisted by the respondent who raised many legal objections. On facts he claimed to be the owner of the suit property as the occupant on the basis of the policy of the Provincial Government.
2. It is proper to express that the petitioners had instituted eleven suits for possession against different defendants which were contested by them on merits.
3. According to the pleadings of the parties the issues were framed. The evidence of the parties was recorded. The suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved the respondent-defendant preferred the appeal which has been accepted by the District Judge with the reasoning being reproduced as under:-- "I have perused the record, which clearly shows that the learned Presiding Officer has recorded himself only the statement of plaintiff alone. The remaining evidence in all the cases has been recorded by someone else. Although, it bears the signatures of the learned Presiding Officer. It appears that the Judicial Officer had delegated the authority to someone else to record the statements of the witnesses. The production of the evidence is also an illegality. Its trial is, therefore, liable to be vitiated on this ground alone."
4. Consequently the appeal was accepted and the case was remanded to the trial Court to record the entire evidence afresh in accordance with law in each and separate case and to decide the same afresh. Hence this revision petition.
5. I have heard the preliminary arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners plaintiffs who canvassed before me that under Order 18, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code the Civil Judge was competent to allow some official to record the evidence and that the reasoning expressed by the District Judge was not maintainable. I express my inability to agree with him. It would be proper to express that vide notification dated 4-7-1942 the Lahore High Court has effected the amendment in Rule 8 of Order 18, Civil Procedure Code and at present within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court Rule 8 of Order 18, Civil Procedure Code has to be read as under:-- "Rule 8.---Where the evidence is not taken down in writing by the Judge, he shall be bound, as the examination of each witness proceeds, to make a memorandum of the substance of what each witness deposes, in his own hand or from his dictation in open Court and such memorandum shall be signed by the Judge and shall form part of the record."
6. In the instant matter the important difference which has been examined and seen is that there were eleven suits before the trial Court for possession on the basis of ownership of the petitioners wherein the petitioners are one and the same. In each case the evidence has been reproduced sentence to sentence and verbatim by some official of the Court. It clearly indicates that the evidence was not recorded by some official of the Court at the dictation of the Presiding Officer as required by Rule 8 of Order 18, Civil Procedure Code made applicable by the Lahore High Court, Lahore. It seems that this matter alongwith the connected matters has been disposed of in a perfunctory manner and in routine by the trial Court feeling a burden on his file. When there is reproduction of evidence from one file to the other file it cannot be held that the statements of the witnesses were recorded at the dictation of the Presiding Officer. Such .a working cannot be approved and the District Judge has rightly accepted the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court for its disposal in accordance with law after recording the evidence in accordance with law. No material irregularity has been committed by the District Court and the order under revision is not hit by any of the ingredients of section 115, Civil Procedure Code.
7. I, therefore, hold that it is not a case for the admission of this revision petition which is dismissed in limine.
' C.M.1/C of 1995
8. This application for stay of proceedings before the trial Court has become infructuous in view of the dismissal of the revision petition and the same also stands disposed of.
' C.M.2/C of 1995.
9. This application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, if any, has become infructuous in view of the disposal of the original matter and the same also stands disposed of.