Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 1381 2016 SLD 1381 2016 MLD 70 = 2015 PLJ 185
Sindh High Court
2nd Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2007, decided on 10th November,2014.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE
Arbab Ali Hakro for Appellants.Sundardas and Muhammad Mansoor Mir for
Respondents.Ashfaque Nabi Kazi, Assistant A.G. for the State.

MST. BHAGUL AND 8 OTHERS --AppellantSVSABDULLAH AND OTHERS --Respondent

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XIV,R.3,O.XLI,Rr.24,25,31

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 117,118

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --------- ----------O. XIV, R. 3 & O. XLI, Rr. 24, 25 & 31 --------- Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12 --------- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 118 --------- Suit for specific performance of contract --------- Issue, framing of --------- Scope --------- Burden of proof --------- When plaintiff asserted that defendant had entered a sale agreement with him, burden to prove the same was upon the plaintiff and not on the defendant --------- Appellate Court had no power to discuss the 'issue' framed by Trial Court by bringing any change thereon and could pass within the spirit of O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C. --------- Appellate Court had discretion to 'frame points for determination' but had no power to bring change in the "issues framed" by the Trial Court while discussing the same at appellate stage and could resettle the issue(s) but such resettling of issues at appellate stage could not be equated with discussing the already framed issues by causing change in such issues without notice to the parties or reference to relevant rule --------- Appellate Court could frame the issues but such course would require the said court to refer the matter to Trial Court for recording of additional evidence and findings thereon --------- 'Issues' would require the parties opportunities of hearing and leading their respective evidence in proof or disproof thereof --------- Appellate Court, in the present case, had discussed the issue by substituting the words which had materially changed the meaning thereof --------- Course so adopted by the Appellate Court was not within prescribed procedure --------- Things should be done as demanded by the procedure and not otherwise --------- Both the courts below had not exercised the jurisdiction vested in them properly --------- Case should be remanded for re-framing the issues in accordance with law and to decide the same on merits --------- Trial Court was directed to decide the matter expeditiously within a specified period --------- Appeal was disposed of accordingly. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --------- ----------O. XIV, R. 3…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register