Pakistan Case Law
1987 CLC 2281

Syed HASSAN SHAH vs MALOOK SHAH and anotherOpponents

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1987 CLC 2281
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Civil Revision No.240 of 1978
Date1986-10-12
Judge(s)Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui
ResultRevision accepted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This civil revision application challenges the judgment of the first appellate court, which dismissed the applicant's appeal and affirmed the trial court's decree. The core legal question was whether the first appellate court erred by failing to address all issues of law and fact framed by the trial court, instead focusing solely on one issue (Issue No. 9). The applicant argued that this omission violated the procedural requirements for appellate judgments. The High Court held that under the relevant procedural rules, an appellate court is obligated to state the points for determination and provide a decision on them. By failing to address the multiple issues decided by the trial court, the appellate court's judgment was deficient. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the case, directing the first appellate court to rehear the appeal and decide the matter issue-wise. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court must comprehensively address the points for determination, which typically requires deciding the issues originally framed and adjudicated by the trial court.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does an appellate court satisfy the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it decides only one issue while ignoring others framed by the trial court?
  • Is an appellate court required to decide the issues originally framed by the trial court as points of determination in the appeal?
  • What is the consequence of an appellate court failing to discuss all issues of law and fact in its judgment?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
  • Order XLI Rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
civil revisionappellate court judgmentpoints for determinationremand of caseprocedural errorissue-wise adjudication

1. ' This Revision Application under section 115, C.P.C. Is filed by the plaintiff/applicant against the judgment of the first appellate Court dated 19-4-1978 dismissing the appeal of the applicant and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in this Revision is that the learned first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal did not discuss several issues of law and facts framed by the trial Court in the suit and only decided one issue namely issue No. 9 in the suit. Reliance in this connection has been placed by the learned counsel on Rule 31 of Order XLI, C.P.C. Which requires that the judgment of the appellate Court shall state the points for determination, and the decision thereof. It is quite clear from the record that as many as 16 issues of law and facts were framed in the original suit and the learned trial Court has given decision on each of these issues separately. In these circumstances the leaned first appellate Court should have either re-framed the issues or should have decided the issues which were originally framed and decided by the trial Court as points of determination in the appeal. As the learned first appellate Court did not decide any of these issues which were decided by the learned trial Court except issue No.9, I accept this Revision Application, set aside the judgment of the first appellate Court and remand the case back with the direction that the learned first appellate Court should re-hear the appeal and decide the same issue-wise.

2. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. As the appeal was instituted in the year 1 974 the learned first appellate Court will make every effort to dispose of this appeal within three months from the date of receipt of R and P.

Cited by 20 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.