Framing of issues

Plea raised by respondents was that issues were required to be framed by Court prior to setting aside judgment in question

Validity

Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. can be decided without framing of issues and recording of evidence, which is not obligatory for Court

It is the satisfaction of Court either to frame issues, record evidence or decide such applications as it may deem fit and proper after considering circumstances of each case

No yardstick can be fixed for adjudication of such application

Determination of allegations of fraud and misrepresentation usually involves investigation into questions of fact but it is not in every case that Court is under obligation to frame issues, record evidence of parties and follow procedure prescribed for decision of suit

Relevant authorities did not find any record of RL-II pertaining to land in question, available in record

No RL-II pertaining to land in question was issued either to respondents or others

If on the basis of void order/judgment, subsequent orders were passed either by same authority or by other authorities, the whole series of such orders, together with superstructure of rights and obligation built upon, them, must unless some statue or principle of law recognizing as legal, the changed position of the parties is in operation, fall to ground because such orders have as little legal foundation as the void order on which they are founded

In the present case there existed no need to frame issues and record evidence

High Court in exercise of powers under S. 12(2), C.P.C. set aside the order passed by authorities

Application was allowed in circumstances.

Order XIV, Rr. 1 & 3 of the C.P.C. prescribes that the issues in a case must be framed on the material propositions of law or fact

Distinct and separate issues are to be framed for each proposition that is in dispute.

Where Insurance Tribunal had decided the issue of liquidated damages without framing any issue and satisfying the test laid down by the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, as well as Insurance Ordinance, 2000, High Court remanded the matter to the Insurance Tribunal with direction to frame specific issue with respect to the claim of liquidated damages and decide the matter after providing fair opportunities to the parties.

Not mandatory to frame issues and record evidence for the disposal of an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., as the Court has to regulate its proceedings keeping in view nature of the allegations made in the application and adopt such mode as is in consonance with justice in the facts and circumstances of the case

Framing of issues in every case to examine merits of such application would frustrate the object of S. 12(2), C.P.C., which is to avoid protracted and time consuming litigation and to save the genuine decree holders from grave hardships, ordeal of further litigation, extra burden on their exchequer and simultaneously to reduce unnecessary burden on the Courts.

Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., no doubt, is required to be treated like that of a suit, issues are to be framed and evidence is to be recorded but in cases where it is established that the application is legally not maintainable, the same can be dismissed in a summary manner without framing of issues and recording of evidence.

Framing of issues and recording of evidence in every application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. is neither legal requirement nor sine qua non for the Court

Such matter depends upon the circumstances of the case, in which the application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., is filed, as to whether the application can or cannot be decided without recording of evidence and framing of issues or to fix it for pro and contra evidence.

Insurance Tribunal in all applications must frame a specific issue with regard to the grant or refusal of liquidated damages under S. 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000

If an amount is admitted to be due to a person by the insurer under a claim that amount should be deposited in a profit bearing account at the first opportunity by the Insurance Tribunal and to that extent the insurer should not be held liable for liquidated damages in any case.

No specific issue was framed by the Tribunal for the grant or otherwise of liquidated damages under S. 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000

Such a claim by its very nature required evidence to be led and proof that the claimant in the given case was entitled to the payment of liquidated damages on late settlement of claims

Mere fact that the claim was settled belatedly did not ipso facto and without more gave rise to the payment of liquidated damages under S. 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000

Insurer was willing to make payment of the claim based on surveyor's report which was not agreed by the claimant and so the claimant chose to file an application to the Insurance Tribunal

Since the course of litigation was adopted by claimant, the insurer was left with no choice but to defend its stance before the Tribunal

Relief granted by the Insurance Tribunal with regard to liquidated damages was set aside.

During pendency of appeal, petitioner (husband) filed an application for framing additional issues regarding the ownership of vehicle

Appellate Court dismissed the application while holding that findings of Family Court on the issue were comprehensive and no additional issue was required to be framed

Validity

Vehicle in question was registered in the name of petitioner

Question whether it was sold off to the petitioner or was given by the father of respondent as part of dowry articles had already been dealt with by the Family Court

No sale receipt was produced by the petitioner to show that it was a sale

Petitioner had not denied that transfer of vehicle was made immediately after the marriage was contracted

Very fact that no application for framing of additional issues was filed during 3 years of pendency of suit and one and a half year of the pendency of appeal showed that petitioner had raised the plea after a fatal delay

Writ petition was dismissed.

Court is vested with the powers to decide the application even without framing of issues, if it is of the opinion that framing of issues is not necessary.

Petitioners contended that no issue regarding vires of Valuation Table was framed on which the appellate court recorded its findings

Held, that no specific issue was framed on whether the Valuation Table was duly notified, if so, on which date but another issue framed by the Trial Court was comprehensive enough to allow the Courts to give their respective findings on validity or otherwise of the notice

Framing/non-framing of an issue could not be a ground for reversing the judgment/decree of any court when the same did not cause prejudice to the case of a party.

Respondents contended that two plots in issue were owned by them and proforma respondent; that father of the respondents constructed two houses upon said plots; that mother of appellants being an affectee of "Mangla DAM" was allowed to reside temporarily in house on humanitarian ground; that respondents asked the appellants to pay rent per month to which they agreed; that appellants had not been paying rent since 2001; that appellants were asked to pay rent outstanding or to evict the house handing over the possession of plot/house but they declined

Appellants filed suit, in response, claiming that their mother had purchased the area from predecessor of respondents through oral agreement that plaintiffs constructed the house and were residing therein having lawful ownership/possession; and that respondents managed to transfer the ownership of the plot in dispute illegally/fraudulently in their favour

District Court accepted the suit of respondents and dismissed the suit of appellants

Validity

District Judge has opined that disputed house had been built by "mother" of the appellants, whereas, issues were decided against appellants

Respondents had not challenged the findings of the trial judge in respect of construction of the house, meaning thereby, the claim of the appellants to such extent had been accepted

But while determining validity of said improvements the Trial Court had observed that construction over a piece of land without entitlement had no legal sanctity whereas while recording findings on additional issue the trial judge has opined that the cost of improvements had not been claimed

Before recording findings on legal position/sanctity of improvements over the suit land, it was necessary to determine the value of improvements but the said question had not been addressed by the Trial Court

No specific claim in respect of improvements in terms of "cost of expenditure" had been brought on record by the appellants

No issue was framed as to determine the alleged cost of construction over the suit land

Appeal was accepted and case was remanded to the Court with direction to frame issue as to determine the cost of construction and decide the matter afresh after recording the evidence of the parties in respect of said issue.

Object of framing of issues being that the controversies put by the parties are narrowed to particular points to be settled and determined by the Court

Issues determine nature of onus and right of party to open evidence

Sole purpose is to invite attention of parties to real part needing consideration, so, it is the primary duty of the Court to frame appropriate issue arising from pleadings.

Court is to frame proper issues so that a party could know the controversy.

Significance of framing or non-framing of issues loses its value after recording of evidence as the parties are aware of their pleadings and they can lead their best evidence before the Court.

Though application under S.12(2) of C.P.C was to be treated as suit, however, in every such application, there was no need to frame issues and to record evidence, rather the same depended upon the facts of case.

Where element of forgery, misrepresentation or fraud is involved, the said issue cannot be decided summarily, rather it being mixed question of law and fact can only be adjudicated upon after settling issues and appreciating the evidence to be led by the parties in pros and cons.

Whenever a controversial question of fact, especially practice of fraud is raised, the proper course for the court will be to frame issues on such question and decide the lis on its merits in the light of evidence to be made available before it.

Original owner of suit property (respondent) filed suit for cancellation of inheritance mutation claiming therein that she was shown to be dead by practicing mis-representation

Civil Court decreed the suit

Respondent subsequently transferred the suit property to the beneficiaries

Petitioner filed application under S.12(2), C.P.C. contending therein that she had purchased the suit property from legal heirs of the respondent

Bank, in whose favour the petitioner had mortgaged the suit property, also filed application under S.12(2), C.P.C.

Petitioner's application was concurrently dismissed by the courts below

Validity

One party claimed that the respondent passed away in the year 1985 or prior thereto and thereby the inheritance mutation along with various registered instruments were not only attested, rather money decree by Banking Court was passed as well, whereas in contra, the other/rival party asserted that the respondent after getting the consent decree from the Civil Court in her favour and transferring the suit property to beneficiaries as well, subsequently departed in the year 2003

Real controversy inter se both set of the parties could not be resolved until and unless the date of death of respondent was determined through proper/due trial

Issue of limitation in the lis was a mixed question of law and fact which could not be determined without conducting the trial

Constitutional petition was allowed, impugned order was set aside and the trial court was directed to decide the application filed by petitioner and the Bank jointly.

Court has to frame proper issues so that the parties may know the controversy, the disputed fact, on which evidence is to be led and to enable an effective judgment to be rendered.

Matters to be considered before framing issues, detailed.

Issue is a single material point of fact or law in litigation that is affirmed by one side and denied by the other, that subject of the final determination of the proceedings is called 'issue'

Object of framing issues is to ascertain the real dispute between the parties by narrowing down the area of conflict and determining where the parties differ

Judge himself is to frame proper issues

Where parties are not satisfied, it is their duty to get proper issues framed.

Framing of an issue does not mean that a Court is taking a position on the contentions of the parties on a material question of fact or law

Court is merely engraving the contours of the trial so that the progress of the trial is not accosted by slugfest on immaterial issues that have no bearing on the adjudication of the rights and liabilities of the parties.

To frame issues, Court is to find out questions of fact, question of law and mixed questions of fact and law from pleadings of the parties and other materials, which are produced with pleading and parties are to produce their evidence to prove or disprove the framed issues.

Trial Court after framing of issues rejected plaint summarily without recording of evidence on the plea that plaintiff did not face prosecution

Validity

Principle governing such type of circumstances was that where issues were framed, parties must be allowed to lead evidence and plaint could not be summarily rejected

Trial Court did not take such principle into account and without recording evidence granted application stating its finding on preliminary issues and rejected the plaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.

Such judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was not outcome of fair trial as neither justice was done nor it seemed to have been done

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and remanded same for decision afresh on merits after recording of evidence on issues already framed

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Civil Court at the stage of framing of issues under O.XIV, R.1(5), C.P.C., is competent to record better statements of the parties and such exercise of discretion has always been approved and appreciated by the High Court so that controversial issues between the parties may, so far as possible, be curtailed and the remaining controversy be adjudicated by recording evidence of the parties

Such course even relieves the parties to produce large number of witnesses and their lengthy cross-examination.

Plaintiffs/ respondents claimed to be legal heirs of deceased owner of suit property who was their maternal grandfather and sought their legal share out of property left by him

Plaint was rejected by Trial Court in exercise of jurisdiction under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. after issues had already been framed but Lower Appellate Court set aside order passed by Trial Court

Validity

Plaintiffs/respondents made bundle of claims which required to be proved by them

Chief Court observed that sufficient opportunity should have been given to plaintiffs/respondents to prove their allegations/claims by adducing evidence

Plaintiffs/respondents disclosed cause of action in their plaint and allegations/claims asserted therein and written statement could only be decided after framing of issues and recording of evidence of parties

Trial Court had already framed issues and case was fixed for evidence of plaintiffs/ respondents, as such pliant could not be rejected under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. at such belated stage

Chief Court declined to interfere in the matter as Trial Court committed material irregularity and illegality while rejecting plaint of plaintiffs/respondents under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. and Lower Appellate Court through its appellate jurisdiction had rightly set aside judgment/order passed by Trial Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Framing of issues in process of every application under S.12(2), C.P.C. is not sine qua non.

Contention of plaintiff was that gift deed allegedly executed in favour of defendants was based on fraud and he was entitled for his share in the legacy of his father

Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court decreed the same

Validity

Trial Court had failed to frame proper issues in the light of divergent pleadings of the parties

Plaint of the plaintiff was also ambiguous in the present matter

Case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to frame proper issues after obtaining proposed issues from the parties and proceed with the matter in accordance with law

Trial Court was to afford an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend his plaint if so desired

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Trial Court framed only one issue whereby it required defendant to prove that plaintiff had failed to pay the outstanding amount

Validity

Civil matter could not be decided in piecemeal by framing a single issue with regard to factual controversy

Legal issue could be framed as preliminary issue but issue relating to factual controversy could not be framed as such

Trial Court had framed preliminary issue relating to factual controversy and had placed its onus on defendant as such it was pre-determination of the suit that if the defendant failed, the suit would stand decreed

High Court directed the Trial Court to frame proper issues and proceed in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Firstly, tenant denied relationship tenancy but during pendency of eviction petition, he handed over keys of demised premises

Rent Controller allowed the application and directed tenant to pay arrears of rent

Appeal was preferred against order of Rent Controller after gap of seven months that was allowed and case was remanded with direction to frame issues and record evidence

Validity

When a tenant had refused relationship of tenancy which was proved to be otherwise from record then general inference would be drawn that he had not paid the rent and there would be no need to determine same through evidence. Landlord could not be permitted to plead payment of rent on principle of approbate and reprobate

High Court allowed second appeal in circumstances.

Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of outstanding sui gas consumption bill, which was dismissed by Trial Court for non-appearance of plaintiff

Plaintiff filed application with affidavit for restoration of suit on ground that his counsel was busy in High Court and Board of Revenue and his clerk had requested Reader of court to mark his attendance

Trial Court dismissed the application holding that absence of petitioner and his counsel was wilful and to avoid application under O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C.

Revisional court upheld said order of dismissal

Contention raised by plaintiff was that restoration application could only be decided after recording of evidence

Validity

Subject-matter of suit involved recovery of public money

Court, before dismissing the suit, called it for hearing after court time was over and no one was present on behalf of plaintiff

Parties were bound to appear in court only during court time and not after closure of courts

Impugned order passed after court time was over, had no legal value

Wrong date of dismissal of suit was mentioned in restoration application, which plaintiff alleged to have resulted unintentionally due to slip of pen, which was question of fact ascertainable only after recording evidence

All questions involved pertaining to restoration application were questions of fact and the same could be resolved only after recording evidence

Trial Court wrongly assumed that plaintiff's absence was motivated by his intention not to produce evidence

Counsel's negligence could be proved after recording of evidence

Courts below erred in law while dismissing restoration application summarily without recording evidence

Trial Court was bound to frame issues as facts mentioned in restoration application were complicated ones

Impugned orders were set aside and case was remanded to Trial Court for decision on restoration application after recording of evidence

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Purpose and object of framing issues was to allow parties to prove and disprove their respective claims in respect of a disputed fact but no issue be framed in respect of a question of fact or law which was not disputed.

Family Court decreed the suit partially but Appellate Court remanded the same with the direction to frame issues in the light of pleadings of the contesting parties

Validity

Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 though were not applicable to the proceedings before the Family Court but principles enshrined therein might be invoked for the just and proper adjudication of the case

Nothing was on record that defendant agitated the framing of additional issue before the Family Court at any stage

Defendant was estopped from seeking an issue to be framed after conclusion of trial

Appellate Court should have appreciated that prayer for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights could not be granted as Talaq had been confirmed

Defendant should have insisted on framing of an issue with regard to conjugal rights

Non-framing of an issue by the Family Court was not even a ground taken in the defendant's appeal

Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and judgment and decree passed by the Family Court were restored

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Purpose of framing issues in a civil litigation was that the parties must know the crucial and critical factual and legal aspects of the case which they were required in law to prove or disprove through evidence in order to succeed in the matter on facts and also the points of law.

Contention of plaintiff that no issue with regard to fraud had been framed by the Trial Court, hence findings of High Court regarding fraud were not sustainable

Validity

Trial Court had framed a composite issue i.e. whether plaintiff was entitled to have decree for specific performance of agreements to sell

Such issue when examined in the context of the pleadings of the parties and written statement of the defendant, left no doubt as to the real controversy between the parties, which required adjudication by the court

Both parties were fully cognizant of the real matter in controversy and the facts, which were required to be proved by them in support of their respective stands and they led evidence accordingly

In such an eventuality, contention that no specific issue on fraud was framed lost significance as no prejudice was caused to the plaintiff

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

When any evidence beyond the purview of issues did come on record, no party could on basis of such evidence set up altogether a new case and press the same for getting relief merely on basis of an out of context evidence.

When any evidence beyond the purview of issues did come on record, no party could on basis of such evidence set up altogether a new case and press the same for getting relief merely on basis of an out of context evidence.

Trial court failed to frame issues as per pleadings of the parties and had left some material issues unframed due to which judgments and decrees were suffering from miscarriage of justice

Additional issues were framed by the High Court and cases were remanded to the courts below for affording opportunities to produce pro and contra evidence on the additional issues and then to decide the cases afresh.

Purpose of framing of issue was not a mere formality but object behind same was to put the parties on complete notice and knowledge to enable them to support their respective claims by evidence on all material points.

Both the courts below had passed their decisions while comparing two notifications but neither the Trial Court framed any issue with regard to such controversies nor Appellate Court framed any point for determination to such effect

Issue/point with regard to application of notification/policy could not be resolved unless it was determined as to where plot in question was situated

Findings of Appellate Court with regard to location of disputed plot were not supported by any document nor parties were put on notice to prove such aspect of the matter

Notifications were not referred by the plaintiffs in their case

Order XIII, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C. had put an obligation upon the parties or their counsel to produce, at the first hearing of the suit, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power on which they would intend to rely and which had not already been filed in the court and all the documents which the court had ordered to be produced

Object behind such provision was to put other side on a notice of such document

Document not brought on record through witness and duly exhibited could not be taken into consideration by the court

Administration of justice would demand that the decision should not be made in an arbitrary manner but same should be confined to the manner provided by the law

Court for proper determination of rights of parties could consider such things which were not pleaded by either sides but not in deviation or departure of the procedure

Provisions of Order XIV and that of Order XLI, R.31, C.P.C. should be given due weight otherwise every decision would give rise to the plea of prejudice which could not be approved

Impugned judgments and decrees of both the courts below were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh after framing of proper issue with regard to application of policies

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

Lower court without framing of issues and giving opportunity of adducing evidence decided the case summarily which was not warranted by law

Courts should pronounce its opinion on all relevant points / facts which had arisen or had been raised in a case

Case was remanded to the Additional District Judge for decision afresh after framing of issues and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.

Non-framing of proper issues was an illegality amounting to exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity

Additional issues were framed and case was remitted to the trial Court for decision afresh.

Averments made in the application under S.12(2), C.P.C. showed that none of the same could be decided without recording of evidence

Matter being factual in nature and, in the eye of law, could not be decided summarily

Application containing allegations of fraud could never be decided without recording of evidence

Constitutional petition was allowed and Trial Court was directed to frame issues and provide ample opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence and then decide the case in accordance with law.

When legal and factual objections are raised and claim is denied by the other party, then it is imperative to thrash out the controversy in the light of pleadings of the parties by framing issues, covering all disputes.

After submission of written statement, the issues have to be framed and on the basis of such issues, the parties were to be asked to submit their respective list of witnesses and thereafter to produce their evidence when in the written statement, the claim has been denied.

Where facts alleged by plaintiff are admitted by defendant or if otherwise the Trial Court places harden of issue on defendant, the defendant has the right to produce evidence first.