SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J. --- This judgment will dispose of two appeals one filed by Masood- ulHassan Khan (RFA No. 31/2001) and the other (RFA No. 43/2001) filed by 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 All 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 A.I, Muhammad Tayyab and Muhammad lqbal 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 fulfill 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. 162/1995. Masood-ul-Hassan, defendant-appellant contested the suit 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 hearing them decreed the Suit No. 162/1995 filed by lffikhar A.I Khan, etc. v. Masoodul-Hassan, etc. 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. 94/1996 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 bound 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. Furthermore, 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 Jamia Masjid Haquani (1996 M LD 818).
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents lftikhar A.I 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 the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The judgment is defined in Section 2(9) of CPC. 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 CPC the suits in which issues have been framed, the Court is bound to give findings on each issue separately unless the findings 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 A.I Khan and others as well as in favour of Gui Badshah etc. The learned Trial Court had to see that-which of the party was at fault and had avoided to fulfill 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.
RFA allowed/.