2002 PLP 2437 (YLR)
CHHOTEY KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 2437 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Zahid Hussain, J |
| Parties | CHHOTEY KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 2437 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 2437 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Zahid Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 2437 (YLR) (CHHOTEY KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Qazi. Khurshid Alam for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
3. Issue No. 1 which had been framed by the learned trial Court was as follows:‑‑ "Whether the defendant sold the disputed Ihata No.39 of one Kanal land in consideration of Rs.2,000 to the plaintiff and in this regard agreement deed dated 4‑7‑1969 was executed? OPP" The learned District Judge while hearing and deciding the appeal has, however, framed the following issues:‑‑ (1) Whether the defendant executed the agreement on 4‑7‑1969 in favour of the appellant? OPP (2) Whether the agreement to sell was for consideration of Rs.2,000 and the possession was delivered to 'the plaintiff? OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff had constructed the house and Chardewari and had spent the amount of Rs.50,000 for its construction? OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff had no cause of action? OPD (5) Whether the suit is time‑barred? (6) Whether the suit is insufficiently valued for the purposes of court‑fee and jurisdiction? OPD (7) Whether the 'defendant is entitled to the special costs under section 35‑A C. P. C. (8) Relief. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Issues Nos. 1 and 2 proposed by the learned District Judge in his judgment were wholly unnecessary and were indeed bifurcation of issue No.1, already having been framed by the trial Court which had enabled the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective pleas. The parties were fully alive of the controversy involved. I also find force in the contention that as far as possible the remand is to, be avoided and should be ordered only when absolutely necessary. In the present case the parties had availed the opportunity before the trial Court to produce evidence. They could not have any legitimate grievance in this regard. The respondent who was appellant before the First Appellate Court had not even made any grievance in his memorandum of appeal that proper issues had not been framed. This was for the reason that Issue No. 1 was comprehensive and exhaustive to cover the whole controversy. As a result of the above the remand order passed by the learned Appellate Court is not sustainable which is set aside. Resultantly the appeal filed by the respondent shall be deemed pending before the First Appellate Court/District. Judge, Bhakkar who shall hear and decide the same in accordance with law. The petition is accepted accordingly. No order as to costs. Revision allowed. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./C‑168/L