KHALID SHAFIQ vs ALLAH DITTA and others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had adjudicated a Regular Second Appeal (R.S.A. No. 62 of 1985). The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court had erred in failing to address all material issues in the case, specifically focusing only on the bar under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, and the bona fides of the petitioner's purchase, while neglecting the critical issue regarding the lawful authority of respondent No. 3 to enter into an agreement to sell. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to examine all relevant issues supported by the record. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision on the appeal, directing that all issues, particularly the authority of the respondent to execute the agreement, be adjudicated after providing a full opportunity of hearing to all parties involved.
- Does a High Court err in law by failing to adjudicate all material issues raised in a Regular Second Appeal?
- Is a judgment liable to be set aside if the appellate court ignores critical issues regarding the authority of a party to enter into a contract?
- Can the Supreme Court remand a case to the High Court for a fresh decision when the initial appellate judgment is incomplete?
- Section 19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 22nd March, 2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore.
2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that learned High Court while disposing of R.S.A. No,62 of 1985 gave its findings only on two points i,e, regarding bar of section 19 of the Colonization Act, 1912 on transfer of the property by Abdul Jabbar in favor of respondent No,1 Allah Ditta and on the question relating to bona fides of the petitioner Khalid Shafique to purchase the property vide sale-deed dated 3rd March, 1976 (Exh.D.1). But as far as other issues are concerned, which are very important particularly the authority of respondent No,3 to enter into agreement to sell dated 17th February, 1976 with the respondent No,1, have not been attended to, therefore, they agreed that on setting aside impugned judgment, case may be remanded to the learned High Court for the decision of R.S.A. No,62 of 1985 afresh, after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned with liberty to petitioner to put forward the pleas in respect of the issues which were abandoned by respondent No,1 before the Appellate Court and High Court.
3. We have examined the impugned judgment carefully as well as the judgments of the trial and Appellate Courts. On our independent consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that High Court may have examined to all issues in the light of the arguments put forward by both the sides and the material available on record, particularly A concerning issue to the effect that as to whether respondent No,3 has lawful authority to enter into agreement to sell dated 3rd March, 1976 with respondent No,l. Therefore, request of both the sides, is conceded to and impugned judgment dated 22nd March, 2001 is set aside. Case is remanded to the High Court for fresh decision of the R.S.A. 62 of 1985, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove.##TE#