2025 C L C 323
2025 C L C 323
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2025L216 1/10
5/13/25, 10:53 PM 2025 C L C 323
2025 C L C 323
[Lahore]
Before Shahid Bilal Hassan and Masud Abid Naqvi, JJ
ABDUL RAHMAN and others ---Appellants
Versus
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and others ---Respondents
R.F.A. No.14953 of 2022, heard on 20th February, 2024.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. XIV, R. 1, O. XV, R. 1, O. XVIII, R. 2, O. XX, R. 5 & O.XLI, R. 31--- Issues,
framing of---Object, purpose and scope---Main object of framing of issues is to
ascertain the real dispute between parties by narrowing down area of conflict and
determine where parties differ---Obligation is cast on Court to read plaint and written
statement and then determine with assistance of counsel for parties, material
propositions of fact or of law on which parties are at variance---Issue is formed on
which decision of case depends---Object of an "issue" is to tie down evidence and
arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what
the dispute is---Judgment then proceeding issue-wise is able to tell precisely how the
dispute was decided---It is duty of Court to frame issues from material propositions---To
frame issues, Court is to find out questions of fact, questions of law and mixed
questions of fact and law from pleading of parties and other materials, which are
produced with the pleadings---Parties are to produce their evidence to prove or
disprove framed issues.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. XIV, R. 5---Amendment of issues---Stage---Court at any time before passing of
decree, can amend framed issues on those terms, which it thinks fit---Such amendment
of framed issues should be necessary for determination of matters in controversy
between the parties.
(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XIV, R. 1---Suit for declaration and
recovery of mesne profits---Failure to frame proper issues---Suit filed by
appellants/plaintiffs for declaration and recovery of mesne profits was dismissed by
Trial Court---Validity---Issues were not according to pleadings of parties---Trial Court
was not acquainted with the real myth of framing of issues---Parties had to lead
evidence keeping in mind burden of proof placed upon their shoulders while
formulating issues---Issues framed by Trial Court did not cover real controversy and
provisions of O. XIV, R. 1, C.P.C. had been defiled---High Court set aside judgment
and decree handed down by Trial Court and case was remanded for decision afresh
after reframing issues---Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Muhammad Yousaf and others v. Haji Murad Muhammad and others PLD 2003 SC
184 and Mst. Rasheeda Bibi and others v. Mukhtar Ahmad and others PLJ 2010 SC 530
rel.
Syed Muhammad Usman Tirmizi for Petitioners.
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2025L216 2/10
5/13/25, 10:53 PM 2025 C L C 323
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2025L216 3/10
5/13/25, 10:53 PM 2025 C L C 323
restored the possession and forthwith payment of remaining consideration amount. Like
past, the appellants again trusted the words of defendant No.l and on 06.11.2017,
appellants Nos.1 and 2 entered into a new agreement with respect to the suit property
with defendant No.2 in consideration of Rs.44,687,500/-. Defendant No.2 also caused
to get mentioned the earnest amount as Rs.l7,500,0000-/ while explaining that it was
necessary to intimidate the defendant No. 13. In November 2017, further amount of
Rs.4,500,000/- in the shape of cheques was paid to the appellants Nos.1 and 2 with the
commitment that all the litigations/cases would be concluded and the possession would
also be restored to the appellants. Therefore, in this way, only the amount of Rs.7.6
million was paid by the defendants Nos. l and 2 to appellants Nos.1 and 2 and still huge
amount was outstanding towards the defendants Nos.1 and 2. Meanwhile redemption
amount of Rs.425,000/- was also paid by the defendants Nos. l and 2. In April 2018,
defendant No.2 informed the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 about the decision of their cases
of ejectment and rent in their favour and assured them that soon they would be able to
get the possession of suit property. As the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 were weak persons,
they opted to remain behind the scene to get the possession of the suit property. At that
time there was great atmosphere of mutual trust between the parties to agreement after
winning the litigation from the defendant No.13 and again appellants on the opinion of
defendant No.2, signed the sale deed and also affixed their thumb impressions to
further pressurize the defendant No. 13. In April the amount of Rs.2-million was paid
to defendant No.2 and in this way, the amount of Rs.346,500/ remained outstanding
towards defendant No.2. After that, the appellants No.l and 2 were informed by
defendants Nos. 1 and 2 that litigation before Anti-corruption has also been concluded
in favour of appellants Nos. 1 and 2 and as soon as they would get the possession of the
suit property the remaining payment shall be made. Then appellants got the knowledge
about the alienation of suit property in favour of defendant No. 13, they forthwith
contacted the defendant No.2 who became furious and thereafter appellants Nos. 1 and
2 also came to know that in violation of impugned agreement, the suit property had
been transferred in the name of defendants Nos. 2 to 12 through misrepresentation and
without knowledge and paying the remaining consideration amount. Since then,
appellants Nos. 1 and 2 have been asking for remaining consideration amount and for
cancellation of impugned sale deed in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 12 along with
mesne profits. They also alleged that due to the dishonesty on the part of defendant
No.2, appellant No.2 also passed away due to the cardiac arrest. Therefore, the
appellants claimed Rs.30,000,000/- too on account of general damages. The appellants
also referred video recording as a proof of residual amount.
2. Written statement was submitted on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 to 12 jointly.
They raised certain preliminary and factual objections and termed the impugned
transactions correct after fulfilling all the necessary ingredients of sale and ultimately
prayed for dismissal of the suit.
3. The divergence in pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed
following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for declaration alongwith
permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether plaintiffs have come to the court with clean hands and they have locus
standi to file the instant suit against the defendants? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious and the same is
liable to be dismissed? OPD
4. Relief.
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2025L216 4/10
5/13/25, 10:53 PM 2025 C L C 323
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2025L216 5/10
5/13/25, 10:53 PM 2025 C L C 323
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2025L216 6/10
5/13/25, 10:53 PM 2025 C L C 323
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2025L216 7/10
5/13/25, 10:53 PM 2025 C L C 323
the plaintiff was bound to prove." (Ganou v. Shri Devsidhes War, 1902 AIR 26
Bom. 360-361).'
Further reliance in this regard is placed on Mst. Rasheeda Bibi and others v.
Mukhtar Ahmad and others (PLJ 2010 SC 530), wherein it has been held that:-
'It is the duty of the Court to frame issues correctly primarily on pleadings of the
parties, because the issues framed by the Court correctly reflect the
controversies arising from the pleadings of the parties and the Court thus can
render an effective judgment on the disputed facts and the party also know on
what fact the evidence should be led. --------------------------------------------, that
framing of a particular issue was not pressed by party affected is no ground for
condoning failure to frame necessary issue and the mandate of Order XIV, Rule
1 C.P.C. reveals that it is incumbent upon the Court to frame issues in the light
of the controversies raised in the pleadings and after examination of the parties,
if necessary. Issues of law and facts are to be illustrated clearly, to enable the
parties to understand the points at issue to support their respective claims by
recording evidence on all material points. It is the settled principle of law that
"action or inaction" on the part of the Court cannot prejudice a party to litigation
and the failure of Courts below to determine material issue amounted to exercise
of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.'
7. For the foregoing reasons, without touching the merits of the case, may it
prejudice case of either of the side, the impugned judgment and decree dated
11.01.2022 handed down by the learned trial Court is set aside by allowing the appeal
in hand and case is remanded to the learned trial Court with a direction to re-frame
issues, keeping in view the above said observations by considering the pleadings of
parties, record evidence and decide the case afresh on merits in accordance with law
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The
adversaries are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 07.03.2024.
MH/A-68/L Case remanded.
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2025L216 8/10
5/13/25, 10:53 PM 2025 C L C 323
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2025L216 9/10
5/13/25, 10:53 PM 2025 C L C 323
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2025L216 10/10