| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLG 998 1990 SLD 998 1990 SCMR 1229 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos.783 of 1984 and 246 of 1986, decisiondated: 17-10-1989,hearing DATE : 17-10-1989.
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., SHAFIUR RAHMAN, SAAD SAOOD, JAN AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ
K.MA. Samdani, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 783 of 1984).Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 1 (in Civil Appeal No. 24
Civil Appeals Nos.783 of 1984 and 246 of 1986, decisiondated: 17-10-1989,hearing DATE : 17-10-1989.
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., SHAFIUR RAHMAN, SAAD SAOOD, JAN AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ
K.MA. Samdani, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 783 of 1984).Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 1 (in Civil Appeal No. 24
BASHIR AHMAD and othersvsCh. NAWAB DIN and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (v of 1908)-----O.XLI, R.23---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the First Appellate Court should not have remanded the case for framing issues on merits and recording evidence of parties and thus should have given an opportunity to appellants to show that condition of the lease had been altered by a subsequent agreement between the parties. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------OXIV, R.1---Finding of Court on factual aspect of case without framing an issue---Legality---Trial Court had only framed two preliminary issues which did not entirely reflect the various defences which tenant had taken in his written statement---Finding that tenant had forfeited his tenancy rights would not be disposed of without framing an issue to that effect and giving him an opportunity below were not right in decreeing the suit of the suit and the Courts important questions which arose in the suit, to a proper trial---Tenant had thus no opportunity to show that the various defences set up by him were indicative of the fact that there had been no forfeiture of his tenancy rights---Finding of High Court that the material already on record was sufficient to dispose of all the issues arising between parties was not sustainable---Case was remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law.JUDGMENT SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: --These are two appeals by special leave from the judgment, dated 28th May, 1979 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The appellants in the two appeals are the heirs of one Dil Muhammad and their interest in the matter before us is the same but they have elected to approach this Court separately because they belong to separate branches of the same family. 2. The dispute between the parties relates to a plot of land, measuring 4 Kanals and 16 Marlas and situate on Katchery Road, Sialkot City. This plot was formerly owned by one Mubarik Din. By a registered deed, dated 1st July, 1926, he leased it to one Muhammad Amin for a period of 50 years at an annual rent of Rs.100. One of the terms of the lease provided that in the event that the owner intended to sell the plot after the…