1990 PLP 245 (MLD)

2. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, III Class, Liaquatpur, District Rahimyar Khan, on 7‑12‑1971. Inter alia the learned trial Court decided issues No.1 and 4'against the petitioners/defendants/. However, resultant decree was passed in their favour by way of dismissal of the suit as a whole.

3. The respondent/plaintiff lodged first appeal before the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, which was entrusted to Mr. Muhammad Naseem Chaudhry, Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan. during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants desired to put up arguments regarding issues No.1 and 4 decided against the petitioners defendants. However, the learned appellate Court rejected the prayer on the ground that no cross objection had been filed regarding the findings on these issues. Accordingly, the learned appellate Court was of the view that no arguments could be allowed by the petitioners/defendants. The appeal was accepted, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed.

4. The petitioners/defendants have lodged this revision. It has been contended amongst other grounds that the learned first appellate Court had illegally disallowed arguments on issues No.1 and

4. In this respect reliance was placed on Order XLI, Rule 22, C.P.C. to support the contentions of the petitioners and on the following authorities:‑‑ (1) Muhammad Hussain Khan v. Said Muhammad Khan and 11 others PLD 1988 SC (AJ&K 184 In which it was held that the appellant at the hearing of the appeal was entitled to support the decree not only on the ground decided in his favour but also on the ground decided against him without filing any cross‑objection. It was further held that the Courts should pronounce their opinion on all relevant points which arise or have been raised in a case. 1n this respect strength was sought from the precedent law from the following cases:‑‑ (a) Gouranga Mohan Sikdar v. The Controller of Import and Export and 2 others 1970 SCMR 323. (b) Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd. v. The Province of East Pakistan and others PLD 1959 Supreme Court (Pak) 272. (c) Muhammad Sadiq Khan etc. v. Muhammad Saleem Khan etc. 1988 MLD 1676. (2) Syed Ali Raza and 4 others v. Aurangzeb Khan and 5 others 1987 CLC 1829 Herein it was held that nom‑filing of cross‑objections by the respondent in an appeal does not disentitle the respondent to support the decree granted in his favour on any of the grounds decided against him by the trial Court without filing any appeal or cross‑ objections. In this authority reliance was placed on the following:‑‑ (i) Robert Cotton Association Limited v. Firm Inayat Ullah & Co. PLD 1959 (W.P) Lah. 178. (ii) Sargodha Central Co‑operative Bank Limited and another v. New Hampshire Insurance Co. PLD 1982 Karachi 627. (iii) Collector, Land Acquisition, Tarbela Dam and 2 others v. Abdur Rauf and 42 others 1987 CLC 225 Peshawar.

5. The learned counsel also relied upon the following authorities to support his contentions:‑‑ (i) Naib‑Subedar Ahmad Khan v. District Magistrate, Jhelum. PLD 1978 Lah. 794. (ii) PLD 1978 Lah. 1376 Mst. Jamila Begum v. Awan‑un‑nass and 15 others. (iii) xMuhammad Din etc. v. Muhammad Khan etc. 1984 MLD 314. (iv) Ghulam Akram etc. v. Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah etc. PLD 1986 SC (AJ&K) 56.

6. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on account of failure to decide issues 1 and 4 by the first appellate Court there has been violation of Order XLI rule 31 C.P.C. and resultantly the order of the learned first appellate Court is not a judgment in tile eyes of law. To support his contention reliance was placed on the following:‑‑ Syed Hassan Shah v. Malook Shah and another 1987 CLC 2281 (Kar.) In this civil revision it was held that the judgment of the appellate Court should state points for determination and decision thereon. Appellate Court below dismissed appeal without discussing several issues of law and facts framed and discussed by trial Court. High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction had set aside the order of the Courts below and remanded the case to appellate Court with direction to rehear the appeal and decide the same issue‑wise. The same view was taken in Muhammad Hayat & others v. Ali Muhammad & others 1982 CLC 238 and this judgment of the Lah. High Court was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ali Muhammad v. Muhammad Hayat and others 1982 SCMR 816.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents/legal 'representatives of Mst. Jiwal Khatoon deceased has without reservation conceded that the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are relevant and in accordance with the law down by the superior Courts.

8. In view of what has been stated above, the civil revision petition is hereby accepted, and the judgment of the first appellate Court is set aside, and the case is remanded to the first appellate Court, District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, to rehear the appeal and decide the same issue‑wise. No order as to costs. A.A./A‑777/L Petition accepted.