Wednesday 31 October 2012

Judgment must discuss each and every issue in evidence

Citation Name  : 2012  CLC  1274     SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
  Side Appellant : ALLAH DITTA
  Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SHARIF




O. XLI, R. 31---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.8---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42---Suit for possession---Contents of judgment---Scope---Suit was dismissed by Trial Court and Appellate Court below, but on second appeal , High Court remanded case to Appellate Court for decision afresh---Validity---Provisions of R.31 of O.XLI, C.P.C., relating to contents of judgment of Appellate Court, were mandatory---First Appellate Court was also a court of facts, and it was enjoined upon the said court to decide each and every issue after discussing the evidence---If decision of appeal was possible after recording the finding on one or more issues, then it was not necessary to record finding of all the issues---In the present case Appellate Court below had not recorded findings issue-wise, but only resolved the question of limitation and question as to whether suit was hit by O.II, R.2, C.P.C., was not resolved---No issue was framed whether the suit was hit by O.II, R.2, C.P.C.---Appellate Court below delivered the judgment in a telegraphic manner without discussing the facts or evidence on record---Appellate Court was obliged to record findings on each and every issue when the decision on the basis of findings on one issue was not possible---Two issues were crucial in the suit and without deciding said issues, appeal could not be decided---High Court, in circumstances, had correctly remanded the case to Appellate Court below for resolving of issues.

1 comment:

  1. Speedy justice
    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2013%5C03%5C09%5Cstory_9-3-2013_pg3_7

    09.03.2013
    Daily Times


    Sir: After the lower courts were instructed by the honourable chief justice (CJ) to dispose of long pending cases, it became heartening to note that old cases were transferred to another court of the same level for speedy disposal of the same. However, It was shocking to note, at least in one civil case, that a learned judge of the lower court, and possessing the same jurisdictional powers of that judicial forum, passed an order stating that the order passed earlier was null and void in the eyes of law — not his exact words but a gist of them. The question that comes to my mind is: does the transfer of a case or a judge in the same jurisdictional forum empower the new judge or court to override and nullify the orders passed by the preceding judge in the same forum and in the same matter? It does not appeal to my common sense that the negation of one’s colleague judge’s orders is lawful or in the interest of justice, the matter clearly falling in the jurisdictional ambit of the higher court. Such incidences, if allowed to occur, will only open the door for more delays and circuitous litigation because the affected litigant will definitely opt for a revision with the district judge, after which there could be apparent chances that the unlawful order will be reversed or stuck down. It would not be out of place to state that such arbitrary and careless use of speed in deciding judicial matters will only deny justice to litigants and will give results to the concept of ‘haste makes waste’. It may be desired of the honourable Supreme Court (SC) to see that the adjudicating courts do not use the powers or jurisdiction of the appellate courts or tend to act as summary courts while speedily deciding matters that, as a rule, ought to be decided on merit only.
    MAZHAR BUTT
    Karachi

    ReplyDelete

Contact Lawyers Network

If you have any queries related with this post you can contact at lawyergolra@gmail.com

Regards,
Salman Yousaf Khan
CEO
Lawyers Network
+92-333-5339880