' MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, C.J.---The "appellant calls in question the judgment of the High Court dated 27th June, 2008, whereby Civil Appeal No,350 of 2006 has been accepted and the case has been remanded to the District Judge for decision in accordance with law.
2. Necessary facts for the disposal of instant appeal are that Ali Muhammad filed a suit for specific performance of contract in the Court of Civil Judge Samahni on 16th April, 2002, alleging therein that an agreement was reached between the parties according to terms and conditions of which the land measuring 2 kanals, 19 marlas, 3 sarsais, bearing survey Nos.200, 201 and 173, situate in village Gahie, Tehsil Samahni, was to be given to him by the defendants. The land measuring 2 kanals, 3 marlas; 3 sarsais, bearing survey Nos.185, 366 and 367 was to be given to defendant No,1 by the plaintiff. He claimed that the defendants are not acting upon the agreement, therefore, he sought a decree for specific performance of contract. The trial Court after necessary proceedings dismissed the suit on 4th January, 2006. The appeal before the District Judge also failed. A learned single Judge in the High Court accepted the appeal on the ground that the judgment of the A District Judge is not in conformity with the provisions of Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the Code). He remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh decision.
3. Ch. Muhammad Suleman, the learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the judgment of the District Judge is in conformity with the provisions of Order XX of the Code. The District Judge has given a detailed judgment on all issues for resolving the controversy after discussing all the evidence placed on record. He contended that the learned single Judge in the High Court has not applied the law correctly.
4.
6. A perusal of judgment of the District Judge reveals that the District Judge recorded findings on issues Nos.1 to 3 collectively as in his opinion all the three issues are co-related and burden of the same is upon the plaintiff. Issues Nos.1 to 3 are as under:-- {{URDU TEXT }} ' He argued that the case could be decided by the learned Judge in the High Court but he has illegally remanded the case to the trial Court. If the learned Judge in the High. Court reached the conclusion that the judgment of the. District Judge offends the provisions of aforesaid Order, then the case could not be remanded to the trial COWL It can be -remanded to the District Judge.
4. While controverting the arguments, Ch. Lal Hussain, the learned counsel for the respondent, argued that the judgment of the High Court is perfectly legal. The District Judge failed to record finding on each and every issue as laid down in Order XX, Rule 5 of the. Code. He argued that issues Nos.1 to 3 are of different nature and require separate adjudication but the District Judge has recorded finding on issues Nos.1 to 3 collectively, .Therefore, the judgment of the High Court is perfectly legal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the outset we may observe that Order XX, Rule 5 of the Code deals with the recording of judgment by the trial Court, while the first appellate Court has to record judgment in the light of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code.
Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code postulates that the first appellate Court shall record findings on all the issues separately, but this is not an inflexible rule. If a case can be decided on a single issue, which is the bone of contention between the parties, then there is no need to record finding on each every issue. In a recent judgment of this Court titled Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Arif and others (Civil P.L.A. No,66 of 2011 delivered on 25-10-2011) it was observed as under:- " I agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code, the first appellate Court has to record its finding on all the issues but the rule is not inflexible. If one issue can resolve the whole case, then the finding on that issue is sufficient for disposal of appeal and the first appellate Court without adhering to other issues can decide the appeal on the ground of the said issue."
' In another case titled Said Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Yousaf and 2 others (2007 SCR 235) it was held as under:- ' Suffice it to say that the language of Order XX Rule 5 is clear that when the issues are framed in a case finding or decision upon each separate issue is to be recorded, but it has very clearly been provided that if the Court is of the opinion that finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for decision of the suit, recording of finding on all issues is not necessary." {{URDU TEXT}} ' From the perusal of issues, we have 'reached the conclusion that the finding can be recorded on issues Nos.1 to 3 collectively. The District Judge was right in recording finding on these issues collectively.
7. The learned single Judge in the High Court has passed a telegraphic judgment without recording the facts of the case and the issues. He has also not gone through the judgment of the District Judge. The learned Judge even has not bothered to look into the, law that Order XX, Rule 5 of the Code is not applicable in the first appellate Court. The impugned judgment is therefore not a- judgment in the eye of law. It was enjoined upon the learned Judge in the High Court to decide the case on merits.
8. The result of above discussion is that this appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for decision on merits with no order as to costs: