1988 PLP 460 (CLC)

"Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In view of the documents brought on record order dated 7‑11‑1985 is recalled. Defendant No.7 may withdraw his share from S.M.A. No. 754 of 1982 according to law."

2. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the order dated 7‑11‑1985 was passed on an interim application moved by the applicant under section 151, C.P.C. in the following terms:‑ "Advocate for plaintiff present, notice sent to defendant No.7 returned unserved, defendant No.7 is restrained from withdrawing his share from SMA No. 754/82 till the next date of hearing. Put off to 27‑11‑1985. (Sd.) Miss Anis Tahir Hussain Vth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South 7‑11‑1985. It appears that on 27‑11‑1985 the parties were present before the Court and a copy of the application under section 151, C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff was supplied to defendants Nos. 6 and 7 and the interim order passed on 7‑11‑1985 was extended upto 8‑12‑1985 on which date the defendants Nos. 6 and 7 were required to file their objections. On 8‑12‑1985 objections were filed on behalf of defendants Nos. 6 and 7 and the hearing was then adjourned to 24‑12‑1985 upto which date the interim order was extended. It appears that on 24‑12‑1885 the application was heard and the learned Judge passed the impugned order which is reproduced above. A perusal of the above order will show that the learned Judge was pursuaded to withdraw the interim order dated 7‑11‑1985 in view of certain documents which were brought on record. The order, however, does not show what was the nature of documents and what was the effect of these documents. It is not even mentioned in the order dated 24‑12‑1985 as to which of the parties had filed those documents before the Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that in fact by the impugned order dated 24‑12‑1985 the application under section 151, C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff was finally disposed of. However, the order does not indicate that the interim order dated 7‑11‑1985 was withdrawn /recalled as a result of dismissal of application under section 151 C.P.C. The order passed by the court on 24‑12‑1985 is absolutely vague and non‑speaking. If the learned Judge had heard the learned counsel for the parties on the application under section 151, C.P.C. he should have stated so and disposed of finally the application instead of merely stating that the interim order is recalled in view of the documents brought on record. The learned Judge should have stated reasons for withdrawing the order and should, have disclosed the effect of the documents on the controversy pending' before him. As the order does not state any reason for the conclusion arrived at by the Court below it cannot be sustained in law. 1 , accordingly accept this Revision Application, set aside the order dated 24‑12‑1985 and remand the case back to the Court below with the direction to dispose of the application under section 151, C.P.C after hearing the parties in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Court on 9th March, 1987 on which date the application will be heard and decided on merits. There will be no order as to costs. H . B . T . / K‑50/ K Revision accepted.