1. ' The petitioners-defendants seek leave to appeal to assail the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on its revisional side on 8-4-1979. By this judgment, petitioners' revision petition was disallowed with costs.
2. ' It was claimed by the petitioners in the High Court that Issues Nos. 11, 21, 22 and 23 may be struck down as they do not arise out of the pleadings of the parties. The issues are :- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The contestants are inter see related. Mst. Khair-un-Nissa respondent-plaintiff.; is the step-sister of Syed Bunyad Ali Shah and Ashraf Shah (deceased) who is represented by his sons, Syed Aulad Ali Shah and other petitioners-defendants.
3. ' Mst. Bibi Khair-un-Nissa filed a civil suit against the petitioners in the Court of first instance. Her case in brief, as disclosed in the plaint, is that after the death of her brother by virtue of a settlement amicably arrived at between the parties, her 1/3 share, out of the property left by her brother, was allowed to her and Mst. Rehmat Begum, her mother defendant No, 7 (respondent herein), was also given her share. But a portion of property in her possession was illegally taken possession of by the petitioners, whose possession may be restored to her and for other property permanent injunction restraining petitioners-defendants to interfere with his peaceful possession was prayed for.
4. ' The petitioners-defendants resisted her claim in their written statement on various grounds.
5. However, Mst. Rehmat Begum, pro forma-defendant, the mother of Bibi Khair-un-Nissa in her written statement repudiated the stand taken by the petitioners, but to some extent admitted the claim of Mst. Khair-un-Nisa.
6. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants during the arguments at the bar maintained that the above-mentioned issues are to be struck down for two-fold grounds ; firstly because these issues do not arise out of the pleadings, and secondly because they only arise between the defendants. After giving my considered thought I have come to the conclusion that this argument is misconceived and without substance. Plaint and written statement are undoubtedly pleadings and if any material proposition of law or fact arises out of any one of them, even between the defendants, vis-a-vis the plaintiff's claim, it becomes imperative for the Court to put such points under issue. The averments in the written statement of Mst. Rehmat Begum, defendant, contain facts which fairly give rise to the controversial issues.
7. It may be emphasised that in framing issues the Courts of law are expected to make them sufficiently expressive of the matter they desire to consider under such issues. The issues are to be framed on the basis of allegations made by the parties in their pleadings. Issues can arise between the defendants even, whose decision in the circumstances of a case, may be necessary for the correct decision of the case. What are material proposition of law and fact must be determined, not merely from the allegations in the plaint, but also from the defence put forward in the written statement. Apprehensive issues are necessary to make the parties fully alive about their respective cases, so that each side may be made fully alive about the questions which are required to be gone into, so that they may have an opportunity for bringing forward such evidence as may be appropriate to the issues. In the instant case, the issues sought to be struck down, in my view, make the case sufficiently clear for the benefit of the parties to produce evidence on these issues, and they do not in any way adversely affect the case of petitioners-defendants. Besides the issues have been framed with the consent of the learned counsel for Syed Bunyad Ali Shah and Bibi Khair- un-Nisa and both of them have signed the draft issues and now they are estopped to say that these points do not arise at all.
8. ' It was further contended that the Court has omitted to frame certain important issues arising out of the plaint. In my view, this argument is not available to the petitioners for the simple reason that it is open to all party to abandon an issue and if a party does not press an issue, it would be taken that the party has abandoned it. In this case, the learned counsel for Mst. Bibi Khair-un-Nisa, plaintiff, does not press for the issues suggested. How can the plaintiff be forced to have an issue and prove it which she disowns.
9. In view of the above, no case of illegal exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court is made out.
10. Leave to appeal, it may be remembered, we cannot be granted as a matter of routine unless it is shown some serious question of law or fact is involved.
11. ' It was next argued by the learned counsel that the suit was incompetent because the stamps affixed on the plaint were purchased in the name of the counsel of the respondent, Mst. Bibi Khair- un-Nissa (plaintiff) and legally these stamps cannot be deemed to have been purchased by her.
12. No law has been cited in support of this proposition. Her counsel represented he for all practical purpose and the stamps purchased in his name and affixed on the plaint shall be deemed to have been purchased by her and affixed on her behalf. The argument, therefore, stands repelled.
13. ' On the basis of the view I have taken in the matter, this petition does not merit consideration. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed with costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.