P L D 1959 Baghdad﷓ul﷓Jadid 1 (PLP)

The Appellate Court judgment began with reciting the allegations in the plaint and in the written statement. After this the issues framed by the trial Judge were copied out and it was said that because of the decision on certain issue the suit was dismissed. Then the main grounds of appeal were copied out, after which it was remarked by the Judge that he had gone through the evidence and heard the counsel for the parties. This was followed by four or five sentences which were nothing but copy of some sentences in the trial Court's judgment. The judgment then proceeded to say that the appellate Judge did not find any ground for differing with the decision of the trial Judge and, therefore, dismissed the appeal with costs. Held, that the judgment was very unsatisfactory and could not be considered to be a judgment at all. Abdul Bari for Appellant. Muhammad Saleem Aslam for Respondents. Muhammad Murad and others brought a suit against Khanzadi and others for possession of pieces of land detailed in the plaint. The suit was resisted on a number of grounds and no less than nine issues were framed by the trial Judge, who by his order dated the 25th of July 1956, dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs went up in appeal, which was heard by Mr. Dilshad Ali, the then Senior Sub‑Judge at Rahimyarkhan. By his order, dated the 31st of March 1958, Mr. Dilshad Ali dismissed the appeal and against his decree the present regular second appeal has been presented to this Court.

2. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for tier appellants was that the judgment recorded by Mr. Dilshad Ali did not satisfy the provisions of Order LXI, rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure which enjoin that an appellate judgment must state inter alia the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. He pointed out that the operative part of the judgment of Mr. Dilshad Ali was a copy of the remarks made by the learned trial Judge with very 14th addition. It appears to me that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has great force. The judgment of Mr. Dilshad Ali begins with reciting the allegations in the plaint and in the written statement. After this, the issues framed by the trial Judge are copied out and it is said that because of the decision on certain issues the suit was dismissed. Then the main grounds of appeal are copied out, after which it is remarked that he had gone through the evidence and heard the counsel for the parties. This is followed by four or five sentences which have been rightly described by the learned counsel for the appellants to be nothing but a copy of some sentences in the trial Courts judgment. After this, the judgment proceeds to say that the learned appellate Judge did not find any ground for differing with the decision of the trial Judge and, therefore, dismissed tile appeal with costs.

3. It is obvious that it was the duty of Mr. Dilshad Ali, while hearing the appeal, to discuss the evidence led by the parties as well as the points of law that arose, and to give his findings thereon along with the reasons for those findings; but this Mr. Dilshad Ali has failed to do, or even to attempt his judgment is very unsatisfactory and cannot be considered to be judgment at all.

4. For the reasons given above, I accept the appeal and remand the case for re‑decision of the appeal presented by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Senior Sub‑Judge, Rahimyarkhan. Mr. Dilshad Ali has been transferred from Rahimyarkhan to Bahawalnagar and had it not been for the fact that if I send the case to him for re‑decision, the parties will have to undergo lot of expense and trouble for what is not their fault but that of Mr. Dilshad Ali, I would have sent the case to him because I nave noticed his tendency to dispose of appeals in the manner in which he as disposed of the appeal in the present case. A copy of his judgment will, however be sent to Mr. Dilshad Ali because it is hoped that after he comes to know of the contents of this judgment, he will change his slipshod method of disposing of appeals. Costs of this appeal will abide the event. K. B. A./A. H. Case remanded.