IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja 
Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed  
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam  
 
Civil Appeal No.548 of 2009 
(Against 
the 
14.4.2009 
of 
the 
Peshawar High Court Abbottabad 
Bench passed in Appeal No.70 of 
2006) 
 
M/s Shah Nawaz Khan and sons 
… 
Appellant(s) 
 
Versus 
Govt. of NWFP and others 
 
… 
Respondent(s) 
 
For the appellant(s):  
Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, ASC  
 
For respondents 1-2:  
Mr. Mujahid Ali Khan, Addl. AG 
 
For respondent No.3:  
Mr. Khan Afzal, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR 
 
Respondents Nos.4-7:  
Ex-parte 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
17.04.2015 
 
 
 
 
  
ORDER  
 
 
Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.-  Learned counsel for the appellants states that already in 
earlier rounds of litigation the case was twice remanded to the trial Court. Through the 
impugned judgment, yet again the matter has been remanded by the High Court to the 
trial Court. The reasons for this have been given in the second sub-para of the paragraph 
7 of the impugned judgment which, for ease of reference, is reproduced as under:- 
 
“The respondent/department has denied all these facts. Regrettably, no 
issue was framed in this respect in terms of Order XIV, rule-1 CPC. No 
doubt it is the duty of the parties to point out the framing of necessary 
issue(s) and ordinarily if no such move is made during the pendency of lis, it 
shall be presumed that the issue has been abandoned. But it is equally the 
duty of the learned trial Court to frame correct issues which are necessary for 
determination of the real controversy between the parties and merely because 
the parties have not pointed out necessary issues does not absolve the learned 
trial court to perform its legal and statutory duty. Action or inaction on the 
part of the court cannot prejudice a party to litigation. Failure of the learned 
trial court to determine material issue amounts to exercise of jurisdiction 
illegally and with material irregularity.” 
 
We note that in fact this very aspect of the case was encapsulated in the issues framed by 
the trial Court and in particular issue No.3, in the following terms:- 
 
“3. 
Has the plaintiff got a locus standi?” 
It is also evident from the record that both parties were aware of their respective stance 
as set out in their pleadings and moreover evidence was also led in the light thereof. In 
this view of the matter, there was no justification for remanding the case by the High 
Court to the trial Court for the third round of litigation. The High Court had all the 
material before it to enable it to decide the RFA.  
3. 
In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow this appeal and set aside the 
impugned judgment. As a consequence, the matter is sent to the High Court for decision 
of the RFA by itself. 
4. 
We may add that remand should only be resorted to where it is absolutely 
necessary for a fair and proper adjudication of a case. Unnecessary remand results in 
undue delay in cases and consequent prolonging of the agony of the litigants. It is quite 
apart from clogging the court dockets and wastage of precious Court time.  
 
Judge  
 
 
Judge  
 
 
Judge  
  
ISLAMABAD, THE   
17th April, 2015 
M. Azhar Malik 
