SAQIB BROTHERS and another vs Messrs CIBA GEIGY (PAKISTAN) LIMITED
This regular first appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Chiniot, on 10-04-1989, which decreed the respondent's suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,77,459.86. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the trial court's judgment constituted a proper judgment under the relevant procedural law when it failed to discuss, consider, or disbelieve the evidence produced by the defendants. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court failed to write a proper judgment because it completely omitted any discussion or evaluation of the statements made by the three defense witnesses, rendering it a one-sided decision. Consequently, the appellate court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision after hearing the parties. The key principle laid down is that a trial court is legally obliged to consider, discuss, and evaluate the evidence produced by both parties before rendering a decision, and failure to do so vitiates the judgment.
- Does a judgment that fails to discuss or disbelieve the evidence produced by the defendants qualify as a proper judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the legal consequence when a trial court ignores and fails to consider the statements of defense witnesses?
- Can an appellate court remand a matter for a fresh decision if the trial court delivers a one-sided judgment?
- Section 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XX Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
' This regular first appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, Chiniot, whereby he, on 1040-1989, decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent, M/s CIBA Geigy Ltd. For the recovery of Rs,1,77,459.86.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the impugned judgment is not a proper judgment within the meanings of section 2 and Order 20, Rule 4 of the C.P.C. Inasmuch as the evidence of the appellants/defendants was not discussed or disbelieved.
3. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial Court on the ground that the judgment contains the gist of the evidence of the witnesses produced by the appellants/defendants.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. I find that although the defendants had produced three witnesses, namely, Muhammad Anwar DW-1, Nazir Ahmad DW-2 and Riaz Hussain DW 3, yet the learned trial Court has neither considered nor discussed the statements of the DWs. After believing the evidence of the plaintiff, the trial Court was obliged to consider, discuss, believe/disbelieve the statements of the DWs. So, the impugned judgment is in reality one-sided judgment. The trial Court has failed to write a proper judgment. It does not show as to who were the defendants witnesses and what had they stated. Such like judgments cannot and should not be approved by this Court. So, this appeal is accepted for want of proper judgment and the case is remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision after hearing the arguments of counsel for the parties. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Cited by 6 cases
- Sultan (Deceased) through LRs vs Member Board Of Revenue and another 2021 MLD 1341
- SHARIFAN BIBI and others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector and others 2007 YLR 3122
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ARIFWALA and 3 others 2006 MLD 853
- EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL and another vs Rana ZAHID IQBAL and 2 1999 PLC 302
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF Versus TALIA 1998 CLC 1104
- JAM GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others vs Haji UMEDA and others 1994 MLD 2183