0% found this document useful (0 votes)
16 views10 pages

2025 C L C 323

The case involves an appeal by Abdul Rahman and others against Muhammad Farooq and others regarding a suit for declaration and recovery of mesne profits related to a property dispute. The High Court found that the trial court failed to frame proper issues according to the parties' pleadings, leading to the dismissal of the appellants' suit. The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision after reframing the issues appropriately.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
16 views10 pages

2025 C L C 323

The case involves an appeal by Abdul Rahman and others against Muhammad Farooq and others regarding a suit for declaration and recovery of mesne profits related to a property dispute. The High Court found that the trial court failed to frame proper issues according to the parties' pleadings, leading to the dismissal of the appellants' suit. The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision after reframing the issues appropriately.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 10

5/13/25, 10:53 PM 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

Asif Siddique Chaudhary for Respondents.


Date of hearing: 20th February, 2024.
JUDGMENT
SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.---Succinctly, the appellants instituted a suit for
declaration with subsequent relief along with recovery of mesne profit against the
respondents with respect of the suit property measuring 178-Kanals 15-Marlas, situated
at Mauza Maryuin Kalan, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, as per Record of Rights for
the year 2014-15 contending therein that due to the permanent residence of the
plaintiffs in District Lahore, they leased out the suit property to defendant No.13 who
was son-in-law of their sister namely Zubaida Bibi, brother-in-law of plaintiff No.1, but
defendant No. 13 always remained reluctant in payment of rent and most of the time he
failed to pay the amount of Thaika" but the appellants tolerated this conduct of
defendant No. 13 due to the above said relationship. Ultimately on demand of
plaintiffs, defendant No. 13 refused to return the possession of suit property and this
controversy led to registration of FIR No. 1 of 2016. Due to the above said litigation
and the permanently living of appellants in Lahore, the appellants, on the offer of
defendant No.1 became ready to enter into a fake and fictitious agreement with
defendant No. 1 who assured them that the said agreement would be merely to show the
defendant No. 13 and he being influential person would be in the better position than
the appellants to litigate and deal with the defendant No. 13 in the courts and out of the
courts. Defendant No.1 further persuaded the appellants that as soon as they would get
the possession of suit property, they would settle all the matters with respect to their
agreement and meanwhile preferred to write the agreement on the stamp paper valuing
Rs. 100/-. Therefore, vide fictitious agreement dated 15.04.2016 with respect to suit
property measuring 178-kanals 15-marlas in total consideration of Rs.4 crores, 46-lacs,
87 thousand i.e. Rs.2,000,000/- per acre on the stamp paper valuing Rs. 100/- penned
down. At that time, it was also disclosed to the buyers that the appellants were in
litigation with Zubaida Bibi with respect to her share in the suit property. The
appellants claimed in the plaint that the price of land was much higher at that time but
due to the dispute with defendant No.13, the appellants opted to show the low-price of
their shares in the suit property. In the said agreement, fake payment of Rs.2,500,000/-
was also and to the extent of remaining payment, the target date was fixed as
15.01.2017. As a matter of fact, the payment was merely mentioned in the agreement to
pressurize the defendant No. 13 so that the possession of suit property could be restored
to the appellants and it was orally settled down that the duration of agreement to sell
and schedule for payment of consideration amount shall be settled down after taking
the possession from defendant No. 13. However, even after the attempt of sale
agreement, defendant No. 13 could not be refrained from his activities and continued to
interfere into the suit property in one way or the other. Meanwhile, the appellants also
moved an application for the correction of entries in "Khasra Girdawry" with respect to
suit property and defendant No. 13 also filed a suit for specific performance against the
appellants and their sister. As a result of mutual settlement between the appellants and
defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 pursued the suit for specific performance and
appellants used to ask him about the status of their cases, the reply of the defendant
No.1 always satisfied the appellants. However, on the demand of appellants Nos.1 and
2, ultimately in March, 2017, the defendant No.1 paid an amount of Rs.1.8 million
through cheque to the appellants Nos.1 and 2 and likewise in April, 2017, further
consideration amount Rs.1.3 million was paid, so in this way the outstanding amount
towards the defendant No.1 remained Rs.41,587,500/-. Ultimately, the defendant No.1
showed his failure to compel the defendant No. 13 and also showed his inability to
spend upon the litigation and also to further pay the remaining consideration amount,
therefore, he suggested the appellants to enter into the fresh agreement with the
defendant No.2 while reiterating his promise to pursue the above said litigation to get

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

Both the parties adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence. On


conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated
11.01.2022 dismissed suit of the appellants; hence, the instant appeal.
4. Heard.
5. In this case, when the pleadings of the parties have been gone through and have
been put in juxtaposition with the issues framed it has been found that the proper
issues, keeping in view the real controversy between the parties have not been framed
and only stereotype issues have been formulated. In this regard, it is observed that the
term "issue" in a civil case means a disputed question relating to rival contentions in a
suit. It is the crucial point of disagreement, argument or decision. It is the point on
which a case itself is decided in favour of one side or the other, by the court. Framing
of issues is probably the most important part of the trial of a civil suit. For a correct and
accurate decision in the shortest possible time in a case, it is necessary to frame the
correct and accurate issues. Inaccurate and incorrect issues may kill the valuable time
of the court. According to the dictionary meanings, "issue" means a point in question;
an important subject of debate, disagreement, discussion, argument or litigation. Issues
mean a single material point of fact or law in litigation that is affirmed by one party
and denied by the other party to the suit and that subject of the final determination of
the proceedings.
As per the Order XIV Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, issues are
of two kinds: (1) Issues of fact, (2) Issues of Law. Issues, however, may be mixed
issues of fact and law. Rule 2(1) of Order XIV provides that where issues: both of law
and fact arise in the same suit, notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a
preliminary issue, the court should pronounce judgment on all issues, but if the court is
of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law
only, it may try that issue first, if that issue relates to: The jurisdiction of the court; or A
bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. For that purpose, the court
may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until the issues of law
have been decided. The main object of framing of issues is to ascertain the real dispute
between the parties by narrowing down the area of conflict and determine where the
parties differ. An obligation is cast on the court to read the plaint and the written
statement and then determine with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties,
material propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at variance. The issue
shall be formed on which the decision of the case shall depend. The object of an "issue"
is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular question so that
there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The judgment then proceeding issue-wise
would be 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 pleading and
parties are to produce their evidence to prove or disprove framed issues. Following are
the relevant provisions in this regard:-
i. Order XIV Rules 1 to 6 of C.P.C. 1908
ii. Order XVIII Rule 2 of C.P.C. 1908
iii. Order XX Rule 5 of C.P.C. 1908

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2025L216 5/10
5/13/25, 10:53 PM 2025 C L C 323

iv. Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C. 1908


v. Order XV Rule 1 of C.P.C. 1908
Matters to be considered before framing of issues are:-
i. Reading of the plaint and written statement, the court shall read the plaint and
written statement before framing an issue to see what the parties allege in it.
ii. Ascertainment whether allegations in Pleadings are admitted or denied, Order 10
Rule 1 permits the court to examine the parties for the purpose of clarifying the
pleadings, and the court can record admissions and denials of parties in respect
of an allegation of fact as are made in the plaint and written statement.
iii. Admission by any Party. If any party admitted any fact or document, than no
issues are to be framed with regard to those matters and the court will
pronounce judgment respecting matters which are admitted.
iv. Examination of material proposition. The court may ascertain, upon what
material proposition of law or fact the parties are at variance.
v. Examination of witnesses. The court may examine the witnesses for purpose of
framing of issues.
vi. Consider the evidence. The court may also in the framing of issues take into
consideration the evidence led in the suit. Where a material point is not raised in
the pleadings, comes to the notice of the court during course of evidence the
court can frame an issue regarding it and try it.
vii. Examination of any witnesses or documents under Order XIV Rule 4. Under this
rule any person may be examined and any document summoned, for purposes of
correctly framing issues by court, not produced before the court.
The court may frame the issues from all or any of the following materials.
i. Allegations made on oath. Issues can be framed on the allegations made on oath by
the parties or by any persons present on their behalf or made by the pleader of
such parties.
ii. Allegations made in Pleadings. Issue can be framed on the basis of allegations
made in the pleadings.
iii. Allegations made in interrogatories. Where the plaint or written statement does
not sufficiently explain the nature of the party's case, interrogatories may be
administered to the party, and allegations made in answer to interrogatories,
delivered in the suit, may be the basis of framing of issues.
iv. Contents of documents. The court may frame the issue on the contents of
documents produced by either party.
v. Oral examination of Parties. Issues can be framed on the oral examination of the
parties.
vi. Oral objection. Issues may be framed on the basis of oral objection.
Furthermore, at any time before passing of decree, court can amend framed issues on
those terms, which it thinks fit. However, such amendment of framed issues should be

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2025L216 6/10
5/13/25, 10:53 PM 2025 C L C 323

necessary for determination of matters in controversy between parties. Moreover, at


any time before passing of decree, court can strike out framed issues especially when it
appears to court that such issues have been wrongly framed or introduced. Regarding
amendment of framed issues, court possesses discretionary power. Court can exercise
this power when no injustice results from amendment of framed issue on that point,
which is not present in pleading(s). However, it cannot be exercised when it alters
nature of suit, permits making of new case or alters stand of parties through rising of
inconsistent pleas. Regarding amendment of framed issues, court also has mandatory
power. In fact, court is bound to amend framed issues especially when such amendment
is necessary for determination of matters in controversy, when framed issues of do not
bring out point in controversy or when framed issues do not cover entire controversy.
When the lower court omitted to frame an issue before trying a matter in controversy,
the appellate court can frame the issue and refer it for trial to the lower court. There is
no need to remand the entire case. Then the lower court should try such issues and
return the evidence and its decision to the appellate court.
6. However, in this case, the issues are not according to the pleadings of the parties.
It seems that the learned trial Court was not acquainted with the real myth of framing
of issues, because the parties have to lead evidence keeping in mind the burden of proof
placed upon their shoulders while formulating issues. The issues framed by the learned
trial Court do not cover the real controversy, meaning thereby the provisions of Order
XIV, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been defiled. Evidence is led
after framing of issues. The stage of framing of issues is very important in trial of civil
suit because at that stage the real controversy between the parties is summarized in the
shape of issues and narrowing down the area of conflict and determination where the
parties differ and then parties are required to lead evidence on said issues. The
importance of framing correct issues can be seen from the fact that parties are required
to prove issues and not pleadings as provided by Order XVIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. The Court
is bound to give decision on each issue framed as required by Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C.
Therefore, the Courts while framing issues should pay special attention to Order XIV
of C.P.C. and give in depth consideration to the pleadings etc. for the simple reason that
if proper issues are not framed, then entire further process will be meaningless, which
will be wastage of time, energy and would further delay the final decision of the suit. In
the present case, as observed supra, the learned Trial Court did not ponder upon the
pleadings of the parties while framing issues and could not sum up the real controversy
into issues; thus, further proceedings are of no use. In this regard reliance is placed on
Muhammad Yousaf and others v. Haji Murad Muhammad and others (PLD 2003
Supreme Court 184) wherein it has been held:-
"The provisions as contained in Order XIV, Rule 5, C.P.C. were not kept in view and
ignored completely by the learned trial Court while framing the issues as a
result whereof controversy regarding removal of household articles could not be
set as naught. There is no cavil to the proposition which was settled decades ago
and still hold field "that where an issue, though in terms covering the main
question in the cause, does not sufficiently direct the attention of the parties to
the main questions of fact, necessary to be decided, and the parties may have
been prevented from adducing evidence, or fresh issue may be directed to try
the principal question of fact". (Olagappa v. Arbuthnot (1875) 14 BLR 115- 142,
14/268, 316. "The duty of raising issues rests under the Code of Civil Procedure
on the Court and it would be unsafe to presume from the failure of the Court to
raise the necessary issues an attention of the defendant to admit the fact, which

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

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy