Khalid Mahmood J.--M/s. Gul Construction Company, Private (Limited) Kohat through its Managing Director/Chief Executive Gul Mohammad, appellant herein has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2012 of Ms. Nazia Hassan, the learned Civil Judge- XXV; Peshawar, whereby, the Civil Suit No, 302/01, of Respondent No, 1 was decreed against the appellant and Respondent No, 4 herein
2. Brief facts of the case are that Naik Muhammad-Respondent No, 1-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No, 1") instituted a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and, recovery of Rs, 64,00,000/- as refund of security deposited with Respondents No, 2 & 3; Rs, 75,00,000/ as escalation charges; and Rs, 25,00,000/- as call deposit amount against the appellant Defendant No, 1 (hereinafter referred to as "appellant') and Respondents-Defendants No, 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as "Respondents No, 2 to 4).
3. The suit of the Respondent No, 1 was contested by the appellant and Respondents No, 2 to 4 by submitting their written statement. Learned trial Court on receipt of the, written statements, straightaway decreed the suit of Respondent No, 1 against the appellant and Respondent No, 4 vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20.03.2012. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel' for appellant contended that learned trial Court without recording evidence have decreed the suit of Respondent No, 1 on the basis of written statement filed by Respondents No, 2 & 3, against the appellant and Respondent No,
4. Further argued that learned trial Court without observing the relevant procedure given in the Code of Civil Procedure, decided the lis on her own sweet will without framing issues and recording evidence, which is utter and blatant violation of expressed previsions of law, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree may be set aside.
5. As against that, learned Counsel for the respondents defended the impugned judgment and decree and he referred to the written statement filed by the respondents, wherein, no express denial was pleaded, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the Respondent No, 1 against the appellant and Respondent No, 4.
6. We have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
7. A perusal of record reveals that the Respondent No, 1 instituted a suit for recovery of million of rupees, declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant and Respondents No, 2 to 4.
The learned trial Court summoned the respondents. The appellant and Respondents No, 2 and 4 filed their written statements, wherein, they not only raised several legal and factual objections, but also expressly denied the claim of the Respondent No, 1, therefore, it was imperative for the learned trial Judge to thrash out the controversy in the light of pleadings of the parties by framing issues, covering all disputes, but the treatment meted out by the learned trial Judge reflects otherwise, as by minutely examining the entire record, we could not come across framing of any such issues.
Though vide Order Sheet dated 10.02.2012, issues were described to have been framed, in this score too, when we have gone through the impugned judgment, even the impugned judgment no reference of such issues has been made, which clearly show that the learned trial Court had not followed the procedure laid down under Order 14 of CPC, as after submitting of written statement the learned trial Court was required to have framed the issues and on the basis of such issues the parties were asked to submit their respective list of witnesses, thereafter, the parties were directed to produce their evidence, but in the present case, the learned trial Court without observing the said formalities have recorded the impugned judgment. Even in the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court had not appreciated the relevant record and the written statement filed by the appellant and Respondents No, 2 to 4, which altogether are different. Appellant nowhere in his written statement has admitted the claim of Respondent No, 1, rather he had expressly denied his plea.
8. Moreover, it was also observed that the requisite Court fee was not affixed on the plaint, whereas, in the written statement the appellant has raised this crucial question of law in Para-5 of .the preliminary objection, wherein, objection regarding incompetency of suit due to non-affixation Court fee was raised by the appellant. The record shows that neither Respondent No, 1 was directed to meet the deficiency of Court fee nor discussed the same in the impugned judgment, which is the primary requisite of a money suit, on this score too, the impugned judgment is nullity in the eye of Jaw. This blatant negligence and ignorance of basic principle for conducting of trial of civil case shows not only the incompetency of the Judicial Officer but also her habitually to consider off the record material, which is against the judicial norms and never accepted from a Judicial Officer, who deals with the valuable rights of the litigants.
9. In this view of the matter, we allow the present appeal, set-aside the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2012 and remand the case to the learned trial Court to frame proper issues from the respective pleadings of the parties and after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties, decide the lis afresh in accordance with law. The Civil Procedure Code has a set procedure for deciding civil matters. Various orders in CPC provide for procedure in detail for conduct of trial in a suit after the parties have appeared and filed written statement. In this case a strange approach has been made to the case by the learned Presiding Officer; hence we deem it proper to warn the Presiding Officer to remain careful in future, otherwise, it would have adverse effects on her competency as a Judicial Officer in her expected long association with the judiciary in future.