AAMER FAROOQ J.--- This judgment shall decide instant appeal as well as CR Nos. 8 & 9-2016, as common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant is the wife of respondent No. 2, who was an employee of Quaid-e-Azam University , Islamabad. Plot bearing No 535, Street No 38, Sector G-14/4 Islamabad, (the property) was allotted to respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 3. The referred respondent entered into an agreement to sell with respect to the said Plot with respondent No. 1, however at the same time, apparently , respon dent No. 2 executed Hiba Nama dated 30.01.2002 in favor of the appellant. Respondent No. 1, filed Suit for Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell in his favor , whereas the appellant filed a Suit for Declaration and Injunction claiming that she is the owner of the property on the basis of Hiba Nama executed in her favor . Both the suits were consolidated. Learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2014, decreed the Suit for Specific Performance filed by respondent No. 1 in his favor , however the Suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant preferred appeal against judgment and decree dated 22.11.2014. Apparently , respondent No. 2 filed cross objections against judgment and decree dated 22.11.2014. During course of proceedings, application for additional evidence was also filed by the appellant. The Learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 26.10.2015, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. The ,appellant has assailed dismissal of her appeals through instant appeal as well as C.R. No. 9 of 2016, whereas respondent No. 2 has tiled C.R. No. 8-2016 against judgment dated 26.10.2015 on the ground that his cross objections remained undecided.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contended that admittedly , application under Order XLI Order 27 CPC filed by the appellant for leading additional evidence, remained undecided. It was also contended that cross objections filed by respondent No. 2 have not been decided. It was contended that no arguments are being made on merits inasmuch as the irregularity/ille gality by learned Appellate Court, calls for remand of the case for decide afresh. It was also contended that learned Appellate Court failed to give independent findings on the issues between the parties hence the impugned judgment does not amount to be the judgment within the meaning of the word as provided in Civil Procedure Code. Reliance was placed on cases reported as 'Dr. S.S. Naeemul Hamid vs. Mvt. Tahira Sultana and, others' (1989 MLD 3441 ), Aslam Khan and others vs. Khushdil Khan and others' (2015 MLD 213 ) & Mst. Imtiaz Begum vs. Mst. Sultan Jan and others' (2008 SCMR 1259 ).
4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, inter alia, contended that no cross objections were filed properly however respondent No. 2 managed to squeeze the cross objections without following prope r procedure; that the application for additional evidence is inconsequential, as document in question i.e. agreement to sell, has been admitted.
5. The arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties have been heard and the record perused with their able assistance.
6. The facts, leading to filing of instant appeal as well as C.R. Nos. 8 &9 of 2016, have been mentioned hereinabove therefore need not to be reproduced.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has advanced following three arguments while assailing judgment dated 26.10.2015;
(i) that cross objections remained undecided;
(ii) that application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC remained undecided; and
(iii) that issue-wise finding has not been rendered.
8. It is trite law that the Court, hearing the case, should decide all pending miscellaneous applications/issues at the time of passing final judgment. Admittedl y, application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was not decided by learned Appellate Court, hence departure from settled law was made. Reliance is placed on case reported as 'Mst. Imtica Begum vs. Mst. Sultan Jan and others' (2008 SCMR 1259 ).
9. Likewise cross objections, once filed, are to be decided independently . The cross objections, placed on record, shows the stand indicating that they have been filed, however since the same have been placed on file, need to be decided in accordance with law .
10. In view of above, instant appeal as well as CR Nos.8 Et 9 of 2016 are allowed; consequently , impugned judgment dated 26.10.2015 is set aside. The appeals filed by appellant/petitioner , along with cross objections, shall be deemed to be pending before learned Appellate Court and shall be decided after deciding application for additional evidence in accordance with law .
11. Since it is an old matter therefore it is expected that learned Appellate Court shall decide the proceedings expeditiously , preferably within a period of three months