' SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---This judgment will dispose of two appeals one filed by Masood ul Hassan Khan (R.F.A. No,31 of 2001) and the other (R..A. No,43 of 2001) filed Gul Badshah against the judgment and decree dated 12-12-2005 passed by Mr. Muhammad Mohsin Raza Khan, Civil Judge, 1st Class Kabirwala whereby the suit for specific performance of contract instituted by the respondents Iftikhar Ali Khan and others was decreed whereas the suit filed by Gul Badshah Khan against Masood ul Hassan for the specific performance regarding the same land was dismissed.
2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that Iftikhar Ali, Muhammad Tayyab and Muhammad Iqbal instituted a suit bearing No,162 of 1995 against Masood ul Hassan for specific performance of contract dated 30,11-1994 regarding the land measuring 400 kanals situated in Mauza Jaleelpur Tehsil Kabirwala District Khanewal agreed to be sold in their favour by the respondents for a consideration of Rs,47,50,000 out of which. Rs,10,00,000 were paid on the date of registration of agreement to sell dated 30-11-1994. The land in question was already under mortgage with the Agricultural Development Bank which was to be redeemed by the defendants. The remaining amount of consideration of Rs,37,50,000 was to be paid on 20-8-1995. The plaintiffs remained ready and willing to fulfil their remaining part of contract but the defendants avoided to receive the remaining amount of consideration and to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, the civil Suit No,162 of 1995, Masood-ul-Hassan, defendant-appellant contested the suit and in his written statement has admitted the execution of agreement to sell in favour of the respondents- plaintiffs but has alleged that the disputed property is jointly owned by, the defendant Masood-ul- Hassan along with Mst. Gulfam Shahzadi and he had executed the agreement to sell without their consent. Therefore, he approached the plaintiffs and informed them about his inability to execute the sale-deed in their fayour and offered for the return of the earnest money which was accepted and agreement to sell was rescinded.
3. Gul Badshah has instituted a suit bearing, No, 194 of 1996 against Masood-ul-Hassan for the specific performance of contract dated 19-2-1994 whereby he had agreed to sell the same disputed property measuring 400 kanals of land to him for a consideration of Rs,50,00,000 after receiving Rs,2,00,000 as earnest money. The property was under mortgage with the Agricultural Development Bank and it was agreed that it will be got redeemed within four months and the remaining amount of consideration of Rs,40,00,000 will be paid at the time of registration of sale- deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff remained ready and willing to fulfil his part of contract but the defendants refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
4. The defendant admitted the execution of agreement to sell in favour of the appellant but has alleged that the plaintiff has failed to fulfil his part of the contract and to pay the remaining amount of consideration. Therefore, he is not entitled to get decree for specific performance of contract in his favour.
5. The suit titled Gul Badshah v. Masood-ul-Hassan was consolidated with the suit titled lftikhar All and others v. Masood-ul Hassan and others and on 12-12-2000, the learned trial Court framed the following consolidated issues:--
(1) Whether the defendant No,1 namely Masood-ul-Hassan Khan entered into agreement to sell regarding the suit land measuring 400 kanals with his free consent and received Rs,10,00,000 in advance on 30-11-1994 in pursuance of that alleged agreement to sell before Sub-Registrar Kabirwala and got registered the agreement? OPP.
(2) Whether the Suit No, 194 of 1996 dated 15-4-1996 of the defendant No,2 is the outcome of collusion between the defendants and therefore is inoperative and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP,
(3) Whether the alleged agreement between defendants Nos.1 and 2 is not bindings upon the plaintiffs with reference to principle of lis pendence? OPP.
(4) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD.
(5) Whether the other co-sharers namely Masood-ul-Hassan Khan and Mst. Gulfam Shahzadi are not bound for the alleged agreement and as such the agreement is ineffective? OPD1.
(6) Whether the plaintiff's were agree to receive back their earnest money and to cancel the disputed agreement, so they are stopped by their words and conduct to file the suit? OPD1.
(7) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD1.
(8) Whether the defendant No,1 entered into alleged agreement to sell in favour of defendant No,2 with his free-consent on 19-2-1994 for the consideration of Rs,50.00,000 and received Rs,2,00,000 as earnest money? OPD2.
(9) Whether the defendant No,1 did not fulfil the part of his agreement, so the defendant No,2 is entitled to have a decree for specific performance of contract in his favour as prayed for? OPD2.
(10). Relief.
6. The learned trial Court after recording evidence of the parties and after bearing them decreed the Suit No, 162 of 1995 filed by Iflikhar Khan and others v. Masood-ul-Hassan and others. The plaintiffs were directed to deposit balance amount of Rs,37,50,000 in the Court within 30 days and to execute in their favour whereas the Suit No, 94 of 1996 titled "Gul Badshah v. Masood-ul-Hassan" was dismissed and the defendant Masood-ul-Hassan was directed to return the earnest money of Rs,2.00,000 to them.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the above mentioned appeals were filed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants in both the, appeals have contended that the learned trial Court has not decided the real controversy between the parties in accordance with law. The trial Court was bout to give findings on each issue but the learned trial Court has. Decided Issues Nos. 1, 6 and 8 together. These issues were not inter-linked and were liable to be discussed and decided separately. Further more,. Issue No,9 was a crucial issue which has not been decided at all.
Therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants have relied on Muhammad Amin Khan and 10 others v. Khan Muhammad and another (1989 CLC 1552) and Haji Abdul Jalil v. Anjuman Jame Masjid Haquani (1996 M LD 818).
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Iftikhar Ali Khan and others has contended that Issues Nos.1, 6 and 8 were inter-linked and Issue No,9 was dependent upon the decision of the aforesaid issue. Therefore, the impugned judgment is in accordance with law and is liable to be maintained and both tide appeals are liable, to he dismissed.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The judgment is defined in section 2(9) of C.P.C. The judgment should contain concise statement of the cases; the points for determination i,e, issues, decision of the Court with regard to each issue and the reasons for the decision. Under Order XX, Rule 5 of C.P.C. The suits in which issues have been framed, the Court is bound to give findings on each issue separately unless the finding upon one or more of the issue' is sufficient for the decision of the suit:
11. Masood-ul-Hassan appellant had admitted the execution of agreement to sell in favour of the respondents Iftikhar Ali Khan and others as well as in favour of Gul Badshah etc. The learned trial Court had to see that which of the patty was at fault and had avoided to fulfil his part of the contract. The learned trial Court has failed to do so. Issue No,9 was not inter-linked with Issues Nos.1, 6 and 8 and was required to be dealt with independently. The learned trial Court has committed material irregularity by holding that Issue No,9 had become redundant in the light of the decision on Issues Nos.1, 6 and 8. Furthermore Issue No,5 which was a legal and crucial issue, has not been decided by the learned trial Court at all.
12. It has become the practice of the subordinate Courts to avoid giving findings on all the issues before it. Such practice is to be deprecated as it causes undue delay. It is the duty of the subordinate Courts to give findings on each and every issue before it so that at the appellate or revisional stages all the issues can be agitated so as to avoid the remand of the cases, for recording findings on the issue finding of which had not been given.
13. For, what has been discussed above, it is crystal clear that the judgment of the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and cannot be called adjudication upon the rights of the parties in the manners provided by law. Therefore the remand of the case is inevitable. Both the appeals are, hereby, accepted and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court with the direction to decide it afresh in accordance with law within four months positively from the date of the receipt of this judgment.