M/s. Shah Nawaz Khan and sons vs Government of NWFP and others
This matter arises from an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the High Court's judgment remanding a case to the Trial Court for the third time. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter for lack of a specific issue when the existing record and issues, particularly concerning locus standi, already covered the controversy and parties had led evidence accordingly. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in remanding the case as it had all necessary material before it to decide the Regular First Appeal (RFA), and that remands should only be resorted to when absolutely necessary to avoid undue delay and clogging of court dockets. The key principle laid down is that unnecessary remands prolong litigation and violate the constitutional imperative to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice, and courts must decide matters themselves when sufficient material is available on record.
- When is an appellate court justified in remanding a case to the trial court?
- Does the failure of a trial court to frame a specific issue warrant a remand when parties were aware of the controversy and led evidence?
- Can an appellate court decide a Regular First Appeal on its merits instead of ordering a repeated remand?
- Order XIV Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' JAWVVAD 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 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 and remanding the case by the High Court to Trial Court for the third round of litigation. The High Court had all the material before it to enable it to decide the RFA.
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 "ensue inexpensive and expeditious justice."