Kh. Shahad Ahmed, CJ.--The captioned appeal is addressed against a judgment recorded by a learned Judge of the High Court on 30.9.2009 whereby second appeal filed by the appellants, herein, has been dismissed. The appeal has been addressed against the judgment with our leave which granted by one of us (Muhammad Azam Khan, J.) on 29.6.2009.
2.The necessary facts of the controversy brought before this Court are that Respondent No, 1 filed a pre-emption suit in respect of land measuring 6 kanal 6 marla under Survey No, 452, old, 1015, new, situated in village Dhanool, Tehsil & District Kotli on 11.6.1988 in the Court of Civil Judge Kotli. The suit was dismissed in view of the change in law but the High Court ultimately remanded the case to the trial Court on 26.6.1998. During pendency of the suit the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants also died and appellants, herein, were brought on record as legal heirs. Ex-parte proceedings were ordered against the appellants on 23.7.2001 and ex-parte decree on the basis of right of prior purchase was passed against them on 31.7.2001. An application was filed for setting aside the ex- parte decree dated 31.7.2001 before the trial Court on 31.10.2001. The trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 26.2.2005, an appeal before the District Judge met the same fate and second appeal before the High Court failed through judgment dated 30.5.2009, thus the captioned appeal with our leave.
3. Today we have heard the arguments in this case. Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan, advocate for the appellants, contended that all the three Courts below failed to appreciate that in view of the fact that appellants and their counsel were out of the country at the time when ex-parte proceedings and ex-parte decree was passed against them, this being a sufficient ground for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and judgment, it was incumbent upon the Courts below to recall the ex-parte proceedings and the judgment and decide the controversy on merit after extending full length opportunity for leading evidence to the parties. His other argument which he forcefully addressed at Bar is that the judgment of the trial Court has been passed without recording findings on all issues and as contemplated by Order XX, Rule 5 it is necessary under the said codal provision that the Court has to state its finding or decision upon each separate issue.
The judgment of the trial Court having been passed in slipshod manner deserves to be recalled. To support his contentions the learned counsel placed reliance on the cases reported as PLJ 2004 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 8 and 2005 SCR 430 and Order IX, Rule 13 and Order XX, Rule 5, CPC.
4. As against it, it has been contended by Sardar Ghulam Mustafa, the learned counsel for the respondent, that this Court remains slow to interfere in the findings recorded by all the three Courts below concurrently. His other argument is that a perusal of the interim orders passed by the trial Court would reveal that when the appellants failed to. produce evidence in support of their contentions, they purposely absented themselves and after passing of the ex-parte proceedings and grant of ex-parte decree in favour of the respondent, they filed application for setting aside the ex-parte decree which doesn't at all justify recalling or setting aside the ex-parte decree passed on 31.7.2001. With his concise statement he has placed facsimiles of the interim orders dated 27.11.2000, 10.1.2001, 29.1.2001, 15.3.2001, 26.3.2001, 3.5.2001 and 25.5.2001. According to the learned counsel when the appellants failed to produce any evidence despite different orders of the Court on 25.5.2001 their evidence was closed. His other argument is that no sufficient ground has been placed on record to justify the absence which would further create a right for the appellants to get ex-parte proceedings set aside nor has any affidavit been filed in support of the application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings and decree so passed by the trial Court, submitted the learned counsel. While addressing his argument in respect of codal requirement of recording findings on all issues by the trial Court he submitted that Order XX, Rule 5 very clearly requires that the Court is vested with the jurisdiction to dispose of a suit if the finding upon any one or more issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit. To support his contentions the learned counsel referred to and relied upon the cases reported as 2006 SCM R 185 and 2008 SCR 300.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case as well as the citations referred to and relied upon.
In the case reported as PLJ 2004 SC (AJ&K) 8 among others it has been held that the Court has to take lenient view and pass a favourable order furthering the cause of deciding the case on merit as all rules laid down in the Civil Procedure Code are intended for advancing-justice and not for retarding the same purely on technicalities.
Similarly in the case reported as 2005 SCR 430 while relying upon different judgments recorded by this Court it was held that the term 'sufficient cause' cannot be allotted an exact meaning or definition and that no hard and fast rule can be laid down to cover all possible eventualities. Each case has to be dealt in its peculiar circumstances. In this judgment, however, it was held that the term 'sufficient cause' includes a situation which is beyond the control of a party.
In the case reported as 2006 SCM R 185, which judgment has been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent, it has been held that concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below couldn't be reversed without any lawful justification. In the same judgment it was held as under: It is well-settled by now that a judgment which deals with all the points raised, fulfills the requirements of law even thought it may not have discussed each issue separately cannot be termed as "illegal or ab initio void" as pressed time and again by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner."
In the case reported as 2008 SCR 300 it was held that although it is a requirement of law to record findings on all issues but the codal requirement loses its force where the trial Court or the appellate Court is convinced that finding on one or more issues is sufficient for disposal of the case.
The above referred authorities clearly reveal that where issues have been framed in a suit, the Court in the absence of a valid reason with codal backing has to record findings on all issues but this requirement loses its force when the Court is of the opinion and comes to the conclusion that the controversy brought before it can be settled by recording findings on one or more of the issues.
Similarly the other two grounds submitted above have since been concluded by the Courts below by holding that sufficient cause is to be placed on record to get a favourable order from the Court where a party absents itself. For this purpose, however, sufficient reason is to be placed on record.
As far the concurrent findings of the Courts below are concerned, there are umpteen authorities where the Courts particularly this Court has recalled concurrently recorded findings of the Courts below. The criteria, however, in all the three eventualities is that the Court has to examine the facts of each case. When this principle is considered keeping in view the facts of this case it transpires that the appellants, despite several opportunities, failed to produce their evidence and even couldn't support their contentions before the trial Court when they were allowed last opportunity on payment of costs. Their stand that the respondent in the trial Court and his counsel were in Great Britain is not in itself a sufficient ground to justify the absence. Under the admitted principles of administration of justice and common law practice, it is almost settled that one who knocks the door of the Court or appears before the Court, he must in all cases be vigilant and assisting the further process by the Court. The litigant, may be in whatever position before the Court, is required to remain vigilant and cannot procrastinate or hamper the proceedings before a Court of law by absenting himself or negotiating any method hampering the final decision of a case brought before a Court of law.
In view of the above, we feel no justification to interfere in the concurrently recorded findings by the Courts below. Finding no force we dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.