MIRAN BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs DIN MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS
This matter originated from a regular first appeal before the High Court, which determined that the existing issues did not adequately address the real controversy between the parties. Consequently, the High Court exercised its discretion to frame a new, specific issue and directed the trial court to record evidence on this issue and transmit its findings back to the High Court. The petitioners challenged this procedural order before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court acted correctly in directing the framing of a new issue and the recording of additional evidence to resolve the true controversy in a pending appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, finding it to be just, fair, and properly aimed at clarifying the dispute between the parties. The Court held that appellate courts possess the authority to direct the framing of necessary issues and the recording of additional evidence when such steps are essential to determine the real controversy, and it declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of this procedural discretion.
- Can a High Court direct the framing of a new issue during the pendency of a regular first appeal?
- Is an appellate court empowered to order the trial court to record additional evidence on a newly framed issue?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's procedural order aimed at clarifying the real controversy between parties?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The High Court, while hearing the regular first appeal, - reached the conclusion that in order to determine the real controversy between the parties it was necessary that an issue dealing directly with the true controversy should be framed. An issue was, accordingly, framed and the trial Court was directed to give an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence thereon and then to transmit its findings together with the evidence to the High Court before the 15th of February, 1982. This order was passed by the High Court on 19-11-1983. These two petitions have been filed to challenge the above order of the High Court.
2. ' We have heard Mr. Talib H. Rizvi and Mr. Jari Ullah Khan in support of their respective petitions.
3. We consider that the order passed by the High Court is just and fair and directed towards clarifying the real controversy between the parties.
4. ' Not fit cases for interference by this Court.