Issues

  1. No issue regarding weight and price of ornaments framed by the Court but parties led evidence on the point — Court can give the verdict-appellant could not prove his plea. Muhammad Hussain v. Nasim Akhtar 1992 SCR 62 (C & D)
  2. Issue framing of — Additional issue — Held: There was no necessity of framing an additional issue when issue of possession already decided against the plaintiff by the trial Court because the plaintiff failed to prove possession. Boota and another  v. M. Sadiq  2000 SCR 331 (A)
  3. Issues framing of — The time when the issues are framed, the parties should remain vigilant so that any important issue is not left out. Abdul Malik v. Muhammad Anwar 2006 SCR 82 (B)
  4. Issue framing of — It is the fundamental duty of the Court to frame issues correctly, so that the same should reflect the controversies between the parties arising from the pleadings. NAZIR AHMED v. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE 2008 SCR 39 (A)
  5. The basic purpose of framing of issues is that the parties should be alive to the controversies between them on the basis of pleadings and they should lead evidence in support of their claims — Issue framed and case remanded to trial Court. NAZIR AHMED v. M. SIDDIQUE 2008 SCR 39 (B)
  6. —Framing/non-framing— effect of—objection that no issue regarding the payment of dower framed, hence illegality committed-if evidence allowed by the Court to produce-decision is no illegal:- Held—objection repelled-
  7. “ it may be observed here that it is well settled principle of law that even if the issues are not framed but allegations made in the plaint are challenged in the written statement and the Court has allowed evidence to be led then a decision rendered without framing of the issues is not illegal. In the instant case, the parties led their evidence regarding the payment of dower and the trial Court after taking into consideration the same decreed the suit filed by respondent No.1. In such circumstances, the non-framing of a specific issue regarding the payment of dower is inconsequential; therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is hereby repelled”. Munir Iqbal v. Mst. Naheed Ahmed & others 2017 SCR 921 1993 SCMR 2018 & 2012 SCMR 212 ref.
  8. —Framing of—. See Public Works Department & 5 others versus  Aurangzeb & another 2021 SCR 336 (A)
error: Content is protected !!