1982 PLP 816 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH. J.‑The learned Civil Judge, Vehari framed 7 issues in the .suit, the first 6 issues arose from the pleadings of the par ties, while the 7th issue related to "relief". While passing judgment in the said suit, the learned Civil Judge first took up issue No. 6 and dealt it with full length and decided it in favour of the plaintiff. He then took up issues Nos. 1‑5 and disposed all of them with the following observations: "All these issues have no substantive force in view of findings given above under issue No.

6. Therefore, they are decided against the defendants. So far as the question of estoppel is concerned, I have no hesitation to say that estoppel against the question of law was not at all tenable in law. Order accordingly." The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The matter, therefore, was brought before the Lahore High Court and was taken up by a learned Single Judge of the said Court at Multan. The learned Judge held that the judgment of the trial Court was not properly written because while deciding issues Nos. 1‑5 he failed to give reasons upon each separate issue and that the learned Additional District Judge, in his appellate judgment, also did not attend to these issues in a legal and proper manner. Attention in this connection was drawn to the provisions of Order XX, rule 5 of the C. P. C., which provide that "in suits in which issues have bee framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons there fore, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit" and it was observed that the trial Judge was bound to give reasons for his decision on each separate issue and the disposal of issues Nos. 1‑5 by simply observing that "all these issues have no substantive force in view of findings given under issues No. 6" was not a proper decision in accordance with law. He, therefore, accepted the revision petition, set aside the impugned judg ments and decrees of the trial Court and that of the learned Additional District Judge and remanded the case to the trial Court for re‑writing the judgment after hearing the parties with the direction that the trial Court should decide the case within two months. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.

2. Ch. Mohammad Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was no lawful jurisdiction for remand of the case to the trial Court for re‑writing the judgment by it and that the order passed by the High Court was outside the ambit of Order XLI, rule 15, C. P. C.

3. We do not agree. The learned trial Court had disregarded the man datory provisions of Order XX, rule 5, C. P. C. and, therefore, had acted in exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity. The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was competent to make such order in the case as it thought fit.

4. There is no force in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed hereby. Petition dismissed.