' AZMATULLAH MALIK, J.--- Through this revision petition, petitioner Taweez Badshah assailed the judgment and order dated 30-10-2009 passed by Civil Judge-III, Karak and the order/judgment dated 18-10-2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karak whereby the suit of petitioner was dismissed.
2. The respondent/plaintiff 'filed the suit against the petitioner/ - defendant for recovery of Rs, 1, 50,000/ - obtained as Qarz-e-Hassana in the Court of Civil Judge-I, Karak.
3. Petitioner/defendant contested the suit by filing his written statement. From the divergent pleading of the parties the learned trial Court framed the issues whereafter both the parties produced their respective evidence and after hearing parties through their respective counsel the learned trial Court has passed the judgment dated 30-10-2009 and decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff as prayed for.
4. Dissatisfied from the said order of the trial Court the petitioner/defendant preferred appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge-I, Karak who while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner/ defendant maintained the order of trial Court vide the impugned judgment.
5. Counsel for the petitioner/defendant mainly stressed upon the framing of issues by the trial Court as according to him the issues were not framed properly according to the pleading of the parties and by misreading and non-reading both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgments without any cogent reasons. He further argued that the oral testimony regarding the Qarz-e-Hassana was wrongly believed and the best evidence was withheld as according to the respondent/plaintiff the loan was given to the petitioner/defendant in presence of Mir Nawaz the real brother of defendant after obtaining Rs,50,000/- from him. He lastly argued that by not framing the proper issues the trial Court have eared to adjudicate the matter between the parties as the main issue regarding the filing of suit in the Family Court by the daughter of petitioner/defendant who is the wife of respondent/plaintiff was a crucial issue and admitted by the respondent/plaintiff in his statement while appearing as P.W.-1. He requested that from the inception to end the proceedings were not carried out according to law hence requested the acceptance of revision and in the alternative remand of the case back to the trial Court for deciding the matter after framing the issues according to the pleadings.
6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/plaintiff while opposing the contention raised by the counsel for petitioner/defendant argued that no case of interference by this Court has been made out hence the revision in hand being devoid of force be dismissed, however he failed to clarify when asked whether the issues were framed by the trial Court according to the pleadings of the parties specially the objection raised in the written statement of petitioner/defendant regarding filing of suit in the Family Court by his daughter prior to the suit in hand. The learned counsel in reply half-heartedly accepted that issues were not properly framed so in view of the admission of the counsel at the bar without going deep into the controversy between the parties lest it may prejudice either side while setting aside the judgments of both the Courts below this Court deem it proper to remand the case back to the trial Court with the directions to frame the issues afresh according to the pleading of the parties and after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties to decide the case strictly in accordance with the law. Since the case was instituted on 14-11-2008 therefore keeping in view the agonies of the parties the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months after receipt of the case file. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 18-10-2011. The office is directed to remit the case file back to the trial Court positively within one week along with the copy of judgment of this Court.
7. With the above observations this revision petition is disposed of accordingly.