MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 7-10-1999 of the Lahore High Court through which Civil Revision No. 3714 of 1994 filed by the respondents against the judgment dated 5-7-1994 of the lower Appellate Court by which the case was remanded for recording evidence on the amended Issue No. 5 to the trial Court and re-submission of the said evidence to the said Court for decision of the appeal as required under Order XLI, Rule 25, CPC, has been accepted and the said and the first Appellate Court ordered to decide the appeal on the material already brought on the record under the originally framed Issue No. 5.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners filed suit to challenge the legality of the sale-deed executed by their alleged attorney Mustafa Kamal/respondent No. 8 in respect of their property. In the plaint, it was stated that the power-of-attorney allegedly executed by the petitioner on the basis of which the said sale-deed was executed by the said attorney, was a forged document. The issue framed by the trial Court reflecting this controversy was Issue No. 5 which reads as under:-- "Whether the power-of-attorney No. 3405, dated 4.5.1964 was based on fraud, if so, whether registered sale-deed No. 344, dated 21.10.1965 was void, based on fraud, collusive and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiffs in suit No. 94/1 of 1965? OPP."
3. The evidence was led by the parties and the trial Court decided the said issue against the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners wanted the Court to hold that the power- of-attorney was a forged document and that they were not allowed to lead evidence on the allegation of forgery as the issue already framed did not cover the said controversy and they could lead evidence as regards fraud allegedly played by the defendants-respondents in obtaining the said power-of-attorney.
4. The suit was dismissed through judgment dated 7-9-1993 by the trial Court. The petitioners filed appeal before the lower Appellate Court and it was urged that since Issue No. 5 was not properly framed as it did not reflect truly the allegations/averments made in the plaint as to the forged nature of the power-of-attorney, therefore, they were prejudiced as they were not allowed to lead evidence on the said facts and the trial Court refused to give judgment on the question of forgery, as such, the said issue should be amended and re-framed correctly. The lower Appellate Court found force in this argument and amended Issue No. 5 as follows:- "Whether General Power-of-Attorney bearing No. 3405, dated 4.5.1964 is forged and fabricated? If so, whether the registered sale-deed bearing No. 344, dated 21.10.1965 -is illegal, void and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs (Mst. Sughran Bibi, etc.)? OPP".
The case was sent back to the trial Court by the Appellate Court under Order XLI, Rule 25, CPC for recording evidence on the said amended issue and transmission of the same to the said Court for decision of the appeal thereafter through judgment dated 5-7-1994 which was assailed in Civil Revision No.- 3714/1994 before the High Court.
5. It is clear from the judgment of the trial Court that the petitioners were prejudiced for not framing the issue correctly as they were not allowed to lead evidence to prove that the power-of-attorney was a forged document, as such, the sale-deed based on the same was also not a valid document on the ground that the scope of Issue No. 5 as framed did not permit the same as the petitioners under the said issue could only prove the fraud allegedly played by the respondents in obtaining the said power of-attorney from them.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the High Court has observed that the petitioners at the relevant time did not raise objection to the defect in Issue No. 5 and pray for amendment of the same, therefore, they were not entitled at the appeal stage to object to the same.
7. We are afraid, the argument in the facts and circumstances of this case has no force. No doubt, parties in the suit are entitled to make application for the amendment of issues but the fact remains that primarily it is the duty of the Court to frame the issues correctly so that the same should reflect correctly the controversies arising from the pleadings of the parties so that effective judgment could be rendered on the disputed facts and the parties should know as to on what facts the evidence was to be led, therefore, the act of the Court in the case of not framing issue correctly and debarring the petitioner from leading evidence to prove his case as made out in the pleading was rightly corrected by framing Issue No. 5 and sending the case for production of evidence and decision of the appeal thereafter which should not have been interfered with as it did not suffer from any material irregularity amounting to illegality or jurisdictional defect calling for interference under Section 115, CPC.
8. Before parting with this judgment, we may also observe that the law favours adjudication of all the disputed facts on merits after granting opportunity to the parties to prove the same so that the rights of the parties may be determined finally, therefore, in this view of the matter, the judgment of the first Appellate Court was just and proper and not liable to interference on any principle of law.
9. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties who expressed their desire to decide this petition today one way or the other so that no further delay is caused in the disposal of the appeal before the lower Appellate Court.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal, the same is accepted and the judgment dated 7-10-1999 of the Lahore High Court is set aside and the first Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously in accordance with law.