' This petition under section 115. Of the C.P.C. Seeks revision of an order passed by Senior Civil Judge, Lahore on 27th November, 1991 whereby he partly accepted the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 5 of C.P.C. By framing an additional issue but refused it as regards other proposed issues.
2. The necessary facts are that a suit for recovery of Rs,508.592 million as damages was filed by respondent No,1 against the petitioner, the Federation of Pakistan and some others alleging that due to the refusal by the petitioner of the application of respondent No,1 for fmancial assistance, respondent No,1 has suffered loss and damages claimed in the plaint. In the written-statement filed by the petitioner, it was stated that the loan in favour of the respondent No,1 was never sanctioned and the petitioner has no obligation to grant any relief. On these premises, it was averred that the petitioner was not liable to pay any damages.
3. On 29-5-1991, the learned Senior Civil Judge framed the following 4 issues:---
(1) Whether the defendants are entitled to recover special cost under section 35-A, C.P.C.? OPD.
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants? OPD.
(4) Relief.
4. Subsequently, an application under Order 14, Rule 5 of C.P.C. Was filed by the petitioner in which it was stated that the issues already framed do not cover the entire controversy between the parties and, therefore, the following additional issues be framed:-
(a) Whether the defendant No,1 issued any sanction letter for the grant of loan in favour of the plaintiff?
(b) Whether defendant No,1 was under any contractual obligation to disburse the loan to the plaintiff?
(c) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder/misjoinder of necessary/proper parties?
(d) Whether defendant No,1 totally refunded the technical appraisal fee to the plaintiff on rejection of the loan application? If so, to what effect?
(e) Whether the defendant No,1 was under an obligation to obtain approval of the project on behalf of plaintiff from Qazi Committee and for financing from Foreign Credit giving Agency and N.C.Bs.
And D.F.Is.?
(t) Whether N.C.Bs. And D.F.Is. Refused to finance the project? If so, what is its effect?
(g) Whether any cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff?
(h) Whether the plaintiff has suffered any losses due to the fault of the defendant No,1?
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant No,1?
(j) What should the decree be?
5. As already mentioned by virtue of impugned order, the learned Senior Civil.Judge framed one additional issue which reads as under:--- ' Issue No,3-A.---Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary and proper parties? OPD.
6. As regards the other proposed issues, it was observed that there was no necessity for framing same as Issue No,3 fully covered the real controversy between the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, has argued that it was the duty of the Court to frame specific issues arising out of the pleadings on each and every point and a general issue in the nature of issue No,3-A should not have been framed. According to the learned counsel, as separate issues have not been framed, prejudice is likely to occur to the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 is, however, of the view that the learned Senior Civil Judge was correct in refusing to frame other issues.,
9. The case set up in the plaint by respondent No,1 is that its application for financial assistance was illegal and unlawfully refused by the petitioner due to which, respondent No,1 had suffered loss and damage. It is nobody's case that loan in favour of respondent No,1 was ever sanctioned or that there was a concluded contract between the parties. Consequently, issues suggested at serial (a) and (b) do not arise. Proposed issue at serial (c) has already been framed by the trial Court. So far as issue (d) is concerned, it appears that the learned trial Judge should have framed an issue on the question as to whether the petitioner had refunded technical appraisal fee to the respondent/plaintiff, if so, what is its effect? There is, however, no necessity of framing issues of the nature proposed at serial (e) and (f) which do not arise. These proposed issues relate to events mentioned in the plaint by respondent No,1 with a view to highlight the alleged mala fides of the petitioner who has given his version of the events in the written statement. The real controversy between the parties remains to be as to whether on account of refusal of petitioner to sanction loan, respondent No,1 has suffered loss and damage and if so, whether the petitioner is liable to pay the same. This controversy fully stands reflected in Issue No, 3 which is, however, weakly worded and deserved to be recast.
10. As a result of the above discussion, the issues framed by the trial Court are recast as under:---
(i) Whether the defendants are entitled to recover special costs under section 35-A of C.P.C.? OPD.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.
(iii) Whether the defendant No,1 has refunded technical appraisal fee to the plaintiff? If so, with what effect? OPP.
(iv) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary and proper party? OPD.
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any damages? If so, from whom and to what extent?
OPP.
' This civil revision stands disposed of in the above terms.
' At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has voiced an apprehension that in the absence of specific issues, he may not be in a position to lead evidence to prove facts alleged in the written statement. This apprehension of the learned counsel is not well-founded. It shall be open to the petitioner to lead evidence to show that respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to recover any damages for reasons mentioned in the written-statement.