' QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.---Mst. Shamshad Akhtar, petitioner, has filed this revision petition challenging thereby judgment of the learned Additional District Judge-III Swabi, dated 19.10.2010, whereby appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2009 of the learned Civil Judge-V Swabi, was dismissed. The learned Civil Judge-V Swabi, had also dismissed suit of the petitioner/plaintiff against respondent/defendant vide judgment and decree dated 21.07.2009.
2. The petitioner/plaintiff had lodged suit for declaration to the effect that she was owner in possession of land measuring 1 'Kanal' 14 'Marla' comprised of several 'khasra' numbers situated in Dara Ismail Abad, Tehsil and District Swabi, on the basis of unregistered sale deed dated 20.02.1996, therefore, entries in the revenue record to the contrary were wrong, illegal and ineffective on her rights. In addition to prayer for declaration, the petitioner/plaintiff had also prayed for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 20.02.1996, perpetual injunction and also for possession as an alternate relief. In her plaint, the plaintiff/petitioner claimed that land measuring 1 'kanal' 14 'Marla' was sold in her favour by the defendant/respondent for sale consideration of Rs.95000/- vide unregistered sale deed dated 20.02.1996 and that defendant/respondent had also received the sale consideration and had accordingly transferred possession of the land in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. However, on the basis of wrong entries in his favour in the revenue record, the defendant/respondent was bent upon to alienate the suit land to others in violation of the agreement to sale, hence suit for declaration, specific performance of contract, perpetual injunction and possession in the alternative.
3. The suit was resisted by respondent/defendant, who denied execution of unregistered sale deed dated 20.02.1996 in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and also raised objection with regard to the suit being hit by law of limitation while questioning the validity of the sale deed on the ground of the same being unregistered. In his written statement, respondent/defendant also refuted allegation of the petitioner/plaintiff with regard to receipt of sale consideration or transfer of the suit land by way of gift in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. He alleged that the deed was forged and fictitious.
4. The trial Court reduced pleadings of the parties to the following issues:--
1. Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action?
2. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of un-registered deed dated 20.02.1996?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of a contract as prayed for?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for possession as prayed for?
6. Relief'?
5. After recording evidence of the parties, and hearing arguments of their counsel, the learned trial court/Civil Judge-V Swabi, dismissed the suit vide the above referred judgment and decree, and appeal was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide the aforementioned impugned judgment.
6. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties were heard, and record perused with their assistance.
7. It may be observed at the outset that Order XX, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, lays down certain mandatory requirements for a judgment to be termed as a valid judgment in the eyes of law. The provision of Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C. Is re-produced herein-below for ready reference:- "Court to state its decision on each issue.- In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless, the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit."
(Emphasis provided)
8. It would thus be seen that law has provided in unequivocal terms that it is incumbent upon a Court to state its finding or decision on each separate issue. The superior Courts in the country have further elaborated the aforesaid legal provision by holding that not only the said provision is mandatory in nature but its violation also entails the consequence of rendering the judgment as a nullity in the eyes of law. There is a plethora of judgments on the point, but some of these are referred to as under:-- ' In case titled Abdul Mannan and others v. Sikandar Khan (1992 CLC 505) (Lahore), it was held that:-- "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- O.XX, R. 5 & S.115'---Court to state its decision on each issue---Judgment of Trial Court wherein evidence on specific issue was not even discussed was not judgment in the eye of law--- Judgment of lower Appellate Court showed that said Court did not take pains to go through evidence, analyse, refer to the same and decide the pleas which had been raised by defendants- Judgment of lower Appellate Court being based on misreading and non-reading of evidence was amenable to revisional jurisdiction."
' In case titled Asad-Ullah Khan v. Abdul Karim (1997 CLC 1334 (Karachi), the decision rendered on the point was to the following effect:-- "---0.XX, R.5 & S.96---Decision of four issues together by Trial Court and dismissal of suit on basis of such decisionvalidity---Trial Court was bound to discuss each and every issue separately and had to give reasons for arriving at such conclusions---Each and every issue was not discussed fully by Trial Court as contemplated by 0.XX, Rule.5, C.P.C---Effect---Where Trial Court did not give reasons for its decision on each issue, separately and disposed of issues together by simply observing that all such issues had no substantive force in view of finding on particular issue such decision was not in accordance with terms of law as laid down in 0.XX, R.5, C.P.C.---Trial Court's disposal of suit being not in accordance with law, case was remanded for adjudication afresh according to law after hearing arguments of each side on each and every issue and, at the time of their decision comprehensive reasons should be given."
' In case titled Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Rafique and others (1992 CLC 1362), the Board of Revenue, Punjab, observed as follows:-- "(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---0. XX, R. 5---Failure to give finding on each issue--Effect---Order passed by Collector being not in conformity with provision of 0.XX, R.5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was in violation of mandatory provisions is (in) so much as no clear fording (finding) was recorded on each and every issue---Case was remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law."
' In case titled Rehmatullah Khan and another v. Ghulam Farid and others (2009 SCMR 371), the august apex Court adjudged as under:--.
"S.13---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.XX, R.5--- ' Judgment---No issue-wise finding given- -Effect---Ten issues were framed in a pre-emption suit and Trial Court dismissed the suit by deciding only three issues but lower Appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of pre-emptor, on the basis of those issues which were not decided by Trial Court---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction gave its finding on only one issue and partly dismissed the suit--Validity- -Material available on record had made it clear that evidence had not been properly appreciated at any stage---Supreme Court set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and remanded the case to Trial Court for decision afresh giving its findings on all issues after hearing the parties and providing them proper opportunity to produce further evidence---Appeal was allowed."
' In case Mst. Gulshahah v. Civil Judge-Ill/Judge Family Court, Haripur and 2 others (PLD 1992 Peshawar 13), this Court held that; "---S.5 & Sched.---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.XX, R.5---Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula'--Independent issue having been framed covering the entitlement of wife to dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula', Trial Court was legally bound to have recorded independent finding on such issue without being influenced by findings on other grounds for dissolution of marriage---By mixing two separate reliefs in judgment, Trial Court had violated provisions of 0.XX, R.5 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, requiring that judgment should contain a finding on all the issues separately unless parties did not rely on any of the issues---Trial Court, while dismissing suit for dissolution of marriage on grounds other than that of Khula, and granting decree for restitution of conjugal rights to husband did not at all advert to the claim of wife on the basis of Khula'--Appellate Court had refused to grant divorce to wife on basis of Khula' because she had failed to put forth any reason therefor---Putting forth any reason for claim of Khula' was however, not a legal requirement---Judgments of Courts below were not sustainable in circumstances---Case was remanded."
' In case titled Mst. Feroza v. Anjuman-e-Ittihad-e-Baluchan and others (2004 YLR 1535) (Karachi), it was laid down that:-- ---0.XX, R.5 & 0.XI, R.31---Judgment, mandatory requirements of---Failure to give issue-wise finding---Trial Court, failed to give issue-wise findings-Appellate Court while maintaining the judgment passed by the Trial Court did not frame points for determination---Effect---Trial Court had not followed the provisions of 0.XX, R.5, C.P.C. And the Appellate Court ignored the mandatory requirements of 0.XLI, R.31, C.P.C.---Judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below were set aside and the case was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh."
9. In the instant case, as would be seen from the plaint, the plaintiff/petitioner had distinctly prayed for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.2.1996, leading to framing of a separate issue No.4, pertaining to entitlement of the plaintiff to the specific performance of the contract; but in the judgment of the trial Court/Civil Judge-V Swabi, not only issues Nos.3 to 5 were jointly discussed but also no finding was recorded on issue No.4, relating to specific performance of the agreement. The learned trial Court simply held that "all these issues were dependant upon proof of issues Nos.1 and 2 which the plaintiff has not done therefore, all these three issues are jointly decided in negative."
10. Besides, there was neither any discussion nor any finding on the issue of specific performance of the agreement either in the judgment of the learned trial Court, even in discussion/finding on other issues, or in the impugned judgment of the learned appellate Court, despite availability of evidence on the issue, thus rendering judgments of both the Courts illegal and invalid.
11. Since both the trial Court as well as appellate Court have committed material illegality/irregularity while deciding the suit and appeal respectively, in flagrant violation of the mandatory provision of law, the impugned judgments of the trial Court dated 21.07.2009 and that of the appellate Court dated 19.10.2010 are set aside on the acceptance of the instant revision petition. Resultantly, the case/suit is remanded to the learned trial Court/Civil Judge, Swabi for decision afresh on merits by strictly following the mandatory provision of Order XX Rule 5, C.P.C., as early as possible, but in no case beyond one month of receipt of this judgment/order, as the case is very old, instituted in the year 2004. The record of the case be forthwith sent to the learned trial Court/Civil Judge, Swabi.