2015 PLP 945 (SCMR)
Messrs SHAH NAWAZ KHAN AND SONS — Appellants Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2015 PLP 945 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, Sh. Azmat Saeed and Mushir Alam, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs SHAH NAWAZ KHAN AND SONS — Appellants Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (c) Administration of justice, (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 945 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Administration of justice, (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 945 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, Sh. Azmat Saeed and Mushir Alam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 945 (SCMR) (Messrs SHAH NAWAZ KHAN AND SONS — Appellants Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.
- Mujahid Ali Khan, Additional A.-G. for Respondents Nos.1 - 2.
- Khan Afzal, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.3.
- Ex parte for Respondents Nos.4 to 7.
- Date of hearing: 17th April, 2015.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the 14-4-2009 of the Peshawar High Court Abbottabad Bench passed in Appeal No.70 of 2006)
Ss. 107(1)(b) & 100
Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 37(d) & 185
General provisions relating to appeals
Scope
Appellant impugned order of High Court whereby High Court disposed of the Regular First Appeal by remanding the case to Trial Court
Contention of appellant was that the case had been remanded twice before and was now being remanded to Trial Court for a third round of litigation
Held, that it was evident from the record that both parties were aware of their respective stance as set out in their pleadings and moreover evidence was also led in light thereof; and therefore, there was no justification for remanding the case to Trial Court for a third round of litigation
Supreme Court observed that the High Court had all material before it to decide the Regular First Appeal, set aside the impugned order of High Court and sent the matter to High Court with direction to decide the Regular First Appeal by itself
Appeal was allowed, accordingly.
Ss. 107 & 100
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 37(d)
General provisions relating to appeals
Inexpensive and expeditious justice
Scope
Remand should only be resorted to where it was absolutely necessary for fair and proper adjudication of a case
Unnecessary remand resulted in undue delay in cases and consequent prolonging of agony of litigants as well as clogging the court dockets and wastage of precious court time
Supreme Court observed that courts were to bear in the mind the constitutional imperative requiring the State to "ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice".
Courts were to bear in the mind the constitutional imperative requiring the State to "ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice".
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
Learned counsel for the appellants states that already in earlier rounds of litigation the case was twice remanded to the trial Court. Through the impugned judgment, yet again the matter has been remanded by the High Court to the trial Court. The reasons for this have been given in the second sub-para of the paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment which, for ease of reference, is reproduced as under:- "The respondent/department has denied all these facts. Regrettably, no issue was framed in this respect in terms of Order XIV, Rule 1, C.P.C.. No doubt it is the duty of the parties to point out the framing of necessary issue(s) and ordinarily if no such move is made during the pendency of lis, it shall be presumed that the issue has been abandoned. But it is equally the duty of the learned trial Court to frame correct issues which are necessary for determination of the real controversy between the parties and merely because the parties have not pointed out necessary issues does not absolve the learned trial court to perform its legal and statutory duty. Action or inaction on the part of the court cannot prejudice a party to litigation. Failure of the learned trial Court to determine material issue amounts to exercise of jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity." We note that in fact this very aspect of the case was encapsulated in the issues framed by the trial Court and in particular issue No.3, in the following terms:- "(3) Has the plaintiff got a locus standi?" It is also evident from the record that both parties were aware of their respective stance as set out in their pleadings and moreover evidence was also led in the light thereof. In this view of the matter, there was no justification for remanding the case by the High Court to the trial Court for the third round of litigation. The High Court had all the material before it to enable it to decide the R.F.A.
3. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. As a consequence, the matter is sent to the High Court for decision of the RFA by itself.
4. We may add that remand should only be resorted to where it is absolutely necessary for a fair and proper adjudication of a case. Unnecessary remand results in undue delay in cases and consequent prolonging of the agony of the litigants. It is quite apart from clogging the court dockets and wastage of precious Court time. Courts are also to bear in mind, the constitutional imperative requiring the State to "ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice." MH/S-7/SC Case remanded.