Mst. HAYAT ZAIB-UN-NISA alias HAYAT BIBI vs MUHAMMAD ASAD KHAN
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed a First Appeal from Order and upheld a remand order passed by the District Judge, Muzaffargarh. The dispute arose from a suit for possession filed by the respondents' predecessor-in-interest claiming entitlement as a residuary heir. The trial court had dismissed the suit solely on the ground of locus standi, leaving nine out of eleven framed issues untouched. The District Judge set aside this dismissal and remitted the case for a final decision on all remaining issues. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, noting that the appeal against the remand order had remained pending in the High Court for twenty-five years, held that the trial court erred in failing to decide all issues germane to the dispute, particularly given the existence of a compromise deed. Finding no legal infirmity in the remand order, the Supreme Court declined leave to appeal.
- Is a trial court justified in dismissing a suit on a single issue of locus standi while leaving other framed issues untouched?
- Whether an appellate court's order remitting a case to the trial court for determination of all untouched issues is legally sustainable?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be granted against a remand order where the trial court failed to decide issues germane to the subject-matter under dispute?
ORDER
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 18-11-1999 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby First Appeal from Order No,13 of 1974 filed by the respondents was dismissed and the case was remitted to the learned trial Judge with a direction to proceed with it by complying with the earlier order dated 9- 1-1974 of the learned District Judge, Muzaffargarh, whereby the latter had remitted the case for a final decision in the light of the issues which had been left untouched.
2. The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that Mst. Asooda Bibi daughter of Ghulam Qadir was married to one Abdur Razzaq Khan son of Lal Khan. She died on 4-6-1957 and thereupon her property was mutated in favour of her husband namely Abdul Razzaq Khan (1/4) and her daughter, the present petitioner (3/4). Said Abdur Razzaq Khan died on 27-1-1961.
Muhammad Asad Khan, predecessorin-interest of the respondents, filed a suit for possession on 27-9-1961 against the petitioner/defendant claiming his entitlement being residuary. The petitioner contested the above suit. Issues were framed and the parties led their evidence. The learned trial Judge through his judgment dated 7-9-1993 dismissed the suit of the respondents' predecessor- in-interest on the ground that he had no locus standi. An appeal was preferred by the said predecessor-in-interest and the learned District Judge, Muzaffargarh, through his judgment dated 9-1-1974 accepted the same and set aside the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court and remitted the case to decide the matter in the light of the issues which were never touched upon by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents filed aforesaid F.A.O.
Before the Lahore High Court at Multan Bench, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in the terms stated in the preceding paragraph through his judgment dated 18-11-1999, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the entire documents appended with this petition. We must observe at the very outset that the above impugned judgment, which was against a remand order, remained pending before the Lahore High Court for quarter of a century. It is reflected from the judgment of the learned trial Judge that he framed as many as 11 issues and delivered his judgment only on two issues without touching upon the other issues which were also germane to the subject-matter under dispute. If the relationship of the parties is declined, then we fail to understand how a family settlement through a compromise deed took place on 6-2-1968. We do not want to dilate much on this issue as any exercise thereupon may have prejudicial effect upon the case of the either party.
We do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned remand order and dismiss the instant petition.
Leave is declined.
Cited by 1 case
- REZA IQBAL vs ROYAL GROUP though Attorney 2011 PLD Karachi 524