Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Revision No.240 of 1978, decided on 12th October,1986.
‑‑‑ S. 115 & O.XLI, R.31‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Judgment of Appellate Court should state points for determination and decision thereon‑ ‑Appellate Court below dismissed appeal without discussing several issues of law and facts framed and discussed by Trial Court‑‑High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction set aside order of Appellate Court below, remanded case to Appellate Court with direction to re‑hear appeal and decide same, issue‑wise.‑ [Judgment].
K.B. Hutti for Applicant.
Rahim Bakhsh A. Narajo for Opponents.
Date of hearing: 12th October, 1986.
This Revision Application under section 115, C.P.C. is filed by the plaintiff /applicant against the judgment of the first appellate Court dated 19‑4‑1978 dismissing the appeal of the applicant and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in this Revision is that the learned first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal did not discuss several issues of law and facts framed by the trial Court in the suit and only decided one issue namely issue No. 9 in the suit. Reliance in this connection has been placed by the learned counsel on Rule 31 of Order XLI, C.P.C. which requires that the judgment of the appellate Court shall state the points for determination, and the decision thereof. It is quite clear from the record that as many as 16 issues of law and facts were framed in the original suit and the learned trial Court has given decision on each of these issues separately. In these circumstances the leaned first appellate Court should have either re‑framed the issues or should have decided the issues which were originally framed and decided by the trial Court as points of determination in the appeal. As the learned first appellate Court did not decide any of these issues which were decided by the learned trial Court except issue No.9, I accept this Revision Application, set aside the judgment of the first appellate Court and remand the case back with the direction that the learned first appellate Court should re‑hear the appeal and decide the same issue‑wise. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstanced of the case. As the appeal was instituted in the year 1974 the learned first appellate Court will make every effort to dispose of this appeal within three months from the date of receipt of R and P.
H.B.T./H‑27/K Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer