2007 PLP 898 (YLR)
FARZANA through L.Rs. — Petitioner Versus NIKKA alias HASOO through Mst. Allah Wasai and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 898 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Hamid Farooq, J |
| Parties | FARZANA through L.Rs. — Petitioner Versus NIKKA alias HASOO through Mst. Allah Wasai and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 898 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 898 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Hamid Farooq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 898 (YLR) (FARZANA through L.Rs. — Petitioner Versus NIKKA alias HASOO through Mst. Allah Wasai and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioners.
- Mian Shah Abbas for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XX, R.5, O.XLI & S.115
Contention of the petitioner in revision was that Appellate Court below had erred in law while failing to render findings on all the issues and in circumstances it had violated the mandatory provisions of O.XX, R.5 read with O.XLI, C.P.C. and that there would be no objection to remand of the case with direction to Appellate Court below to decide appeal afresh after giving findings on all issues
Revision was allowed and impugned judgment and decree was set aside, and case was remanded accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the lower Appellate Court has erred in law while failing to render findings on all the issues, thus it violated the mandatory provisions of Order XX, rule 5 read-with Order XLI, C.P.C. Latter, when confronted, submits that he has no objection to the remand of the case with the direction to the lower Appellate Court to decide the appeal, afresh, after giving findings on all the issues.
2. In view of the consensus of the learned counsel for the parties, the present revision petition is allowed and impugned judgment and decree dated 19-9-2001 is set aside. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the respondent titled "Nikka etc. v. Faraza etc."- shall be deemed to be pending before the learned District Judge, Bhakkar, who shall himself decide the matter, afresh, after hearing the parties and of course in accordance with law within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs. H.B.T./F-45/L Case remanded.