| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 3424 2003 SLD 3424 2003 PLD 184 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 902 of 2000, decided on 21st October, 2002.
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND, JAVED IQBAL, JJ
Tapir Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehta W.N. Kohli, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 902 of 2000, decided on 21st October, 2002.
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND, JAVED IQBAL, JJ
Tapir Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehta W.N. Kohli, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others
VS
Haji MURAD MUHAMMAD and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- --O. XIV & S.115---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to Appeal was granted to examine as to whether decree for return of articles had been passed by Qazi and confirmed by Appellate Court i.e. Majlis-e-Shoora by means of and decree and the revisional Court respectively without evidence to substantiate the, claim in view of issues framed by the trial Court. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XIV & S. 115---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185---Revision before High Court---Concurrent findings of Court below---Improper framing of issues---Record of the case revealed that foundation of concurrent findings by the Courts below was the admission of appellants concerning alleged removal of various household articles but a careful examination of the contents of the written statement would reveal that the claim of respondents was repudiated, which aspect of the matter escaped notice of the Courts below and resulted in serious miscarriage of justice---Record also showed that the pleadings were never perused with diligent application of mind by the Trial Court and the proper issues clinching the controversy could not be framed and resultantly the parties failed to substantiate their respective claims by adducing credible evidence as the issues framed by the Trial Court were ambiguous and vague---Trial Court itself was not clear as to which party had to discharge the onus of the issues framed---Provisions of O.XIV, R.5, C.P.C. were ignored completely by the Trial Court while framing the issues as a result whereof controversy regarding removal of household articles could not be resolved---Where an issue, though in terms covering the main question in the cause, could not sufficiently direct the attention of the parties to the main questions of fact, necessary to be decided, the parties might have been prevented from adducing evidence, or fresh issue might be directed to try the principal question of fact---Duty of raising issues under C.P.C. rested on the- Court and it would be unsafe to presume from the failure of the Court to raise the necessary issues an intention of the defendant to admit…
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