SHAHID BILAL HASSAN J. Succinctly, Manzoor Ahmad Chinioti, late plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.50,000,000/- as damages against the present appellant and respondent No.2, which was duly contested by the present appellant and respondent No.2. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed following issues:- a. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD b. Whether the impugned publication is privileged and was in the public interest welfare? OPD-2 c. Whether the defendant No.2 published the impugned article, after its publication by defendant No.1. If so, is he not liable to pay damages? OPD-2 d. Whether the impugned publication falls within the purview of libel and the plaintiff has been defamed, if so, is the plaintiff entitled to damages as prayed for? OPP On moving an application by the appellant, the learned trial Court framed two following additional issues on 06.06.1996:- 1-A. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD 1-B. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD Both the parties adduced their evidence. However, the learned trial Court without giving any findings on issues No.1-A and 1 B passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.12.2000 holding the late respondent No.1 entitled to Rs.500,000/-, to be paid by the present appellant and respondent No.2 jointly and severally. The appellant challenged the said judgment and decree; however, the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 04.12.2008; hence, the instant regular second appeal.
2. Heard.
3. Rule 5 of Order XX, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads:- "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.
In the instant case, the learned trial Court framed additional issues 1-A and 1-B on the application of the appellant but while reducing the judgment into writing the learned trial Court totally ignored the said issues, which otherwise go to the root of the case and without deciding the same, the fate of the case cannot be decided finally, because by using word "Shall" the said provision has been made mandatory unless the issues are interlinked and interconnected; however, in the instant case the position is otherwise. In judgment reported as Ali Muhammad v. Muhammad Hayat and others (1982 SCMR 816), the Apex Court of the country held:- `--- it was observed that the trial Judge was bound to give reasons for his decision on each separate issue and the disposal of issues Nos.1-5 by simply observing that "all these issues have no substantive force in view of findings given under issues No.6" was not a proper decision in accordance with law.'
It was further observed that:- `3. We do not agree. The learned trial Court had disregarded the mandatory provisions of Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. and, therefore, had acted in exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity.
The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was competent to make such order in the case as it thought fit.'
4. In this view of the matter, without commenting further on merits of the case, may it prejudice case of either side, the appeal in hand is accepted, impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned trial Court with a direction to decide the same afresh after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. The adversaries are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 14.02.2023, positively.