1994 PLP 2183 (MLD)

2. The learned counsel for the defendants/appellants at the outset of the arguments challenged the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge as violative of the provisions of Order XLI, rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, ought to be set aside on this short ground.

3. The said rule 31 reads:

The judgment of the appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state

(i) the points for determination; (ii) the decision thereon; (iii) the reasons for the decision; and (iv) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled; and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein."

4. In the instant case the learned Additional District Judge, however, had not applied his mind to the facts of the case, nor discussed the evidence orally or documentary although 12 documents and 9 witnesses had been examined by the plaintiffs/respondents and the appellants had produced 7 documents and 14 witnesses in rebuttal. The impugned judgment is just an amalgam discussion of all the six issues spreading over few lines although he was supposed to discuss all the issues with points involved for determination and his own reasons for reaching the decision to descent from the judgment of the lower Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants referred me to various authorities on the subject, the first among them being case of Fatima Bibi cited at 1982 CLC 122 of this Court holding:

"Sketchy and non-speaking order, dismissing revision petition, passed without mentioning and discussing arguments raised by parties, no order in the eye of law and of no legal effect." Then the other couple of judgments of this Court are Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan v. Mehdi Khan 1989 ALD 136(1) laying down that laconic judgment by the appellate Court without stating points for determination and reasons Lor decision falls short of requirement of law and in such a situation the case has to be remanded to the appellate Court for fresh decision and M/s. Saqib Brothers, Jhang and another v. M/s. Ciba Gaigy (pakistan) Ltd. 1991 CLC

710. Wherein the case was remanded because the defendant had produced 3 `witnesses but the Court below had neither considered nor discussed their statements and thus the judgment was in reality ne-sided judgment. Above all there is pronouncement of the Supreme Court in" Nasir Abbas v. Manzoor Haider Shah PLD 1989 SC 568: "It is settled that if evidence on record has not been fully weighed and considered that does not fulfil requirements of Order XLI, rule 31 and the appeal is liable to be set aside."

6. For reasons aforementioned the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge does not satisfy the requirement of law as discussed supra and is, therefore, set aside. The appeal is consequently accepted and the case is remanded for fresh decisions of the appeal on merits after rehearing of the parties who shall appear before the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan on 23-5-1993. The learned District Judge shall either keep the case with him or make it over for disposal to other appropriate Court. But in either way the appeal shall be disposed of before 1-7-1993 under intimation to this Court as the case is nauseatingly old. H.B.T./G-231/L Appeal accepted.