2001 PLP 1615 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 29th March, 2001. CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.‑‑‑We intend to decide the following appeals i.e. R.F.A. No‑324 of 2000 and F.R.A: No.338 of 2000, by one consolidated judgment having similar facts and la wing out of the same judgment and decree dated 20‑6‑2000. 2, The Federation an others had filed R.F.A. No.324 of 2000 against the impugned judgment and decree, for setting aside the same, whereas respondent No. 1, had filed R.F.A. No.338 of 2000 for awarding interest on the amount determined by the learned trial Court in favour of respondent No. l through the impugned judgment and decree.

3. Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, Deputy Attorney‑General, submits that the learned trial Court has erred in law to decide the suit, without' framing issues. He further submits that the appellants had taken legal objections in the written statement, therefore, the suit could not be decreed without the determination of such objection. He further submits that admission allegedly attributed to the appellants in paragraphs Nos.3 and 4 of the written statement was never the admission confessing the claim of the respondent, rather it is regarding a fact, which admission has no bearing upon the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. These issues could only be resolved after framing issues thereof and enabling the parties to produce evidence. He also argued that the learned trial Court decreed the suit on extraneous reasons, which were not brought on record through evidence. 4 Learned counsel for the respondent conversely states that admission in paragraphs 3 and 4, was sufficient within the purview of Order XII, Rule

6. C.P.C. and Article 113 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order, 1984. It is (Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J) settled law that facts admitted need not to be proved and thus, on the basis of such admission, respondent was entitled to the decree straightaway.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record ourselves. As per the pleadings of the parties, there are certain controversial questions, which were either factual or legal and necessitated the trial and findings by the Court below. The admission attributed to the appellant in paragraphs Nos.3 and 4, of the written statement, are not of the nature that the appellants were confessing the claim of the respondent, against them on the basis of which, the learned trial Court could pass the judgment within the purview of Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C. In view of the pleadings of the parties, it was incumbent upon the Court to have framed issues and decide the case in accordance with the procedure provided in the Civil Procedure Code. This has been totally violated by the learned trial Court, therefore, the judgment and decree stand vitiated as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Macdonald & Company Pak. Ltd.'s case (1996 SCMR 699) and is hereby set aside.

6. In R.F.A. No.338 of 2000, the grievance is, that the appellants have not awarded interest on the amount decreed. As we have set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, therefore, this appeal is also disposed of with the direction to the learned trial Court to decide the question/claim of the appellant in R.F.A. No.324 of 2000, about interest, at the time of passing the final judgment and decree in suit.

7. As this matter pertains to commercial dispute, thus, the learned Civil Court is directed to decide this matter finally before 31st of July. 2001, even by proceeding on day to day basis. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 26‑4‑2001. Parties are also directed to cooperate with the trial Court so that case may be decided within prescribed time. Q.M.H./M.A.K./F‑40/L Appeal allowed.