1994 PLP 1815 (MLD)

A pre-emption suit was filed by the petitioner in respect of sale of 8 Kanals of land by Sardar Ali Khan in favour of the respondent basing superior right on the ground "of being co-sharer of land in Chak No.52/2.L". The suit was resisted and number of issues were framed by the learned trial Court as under:

(1) Whether plaintiff has superior right of pre-emption? (2) Whether ostensible sale price Rs.60,000 was bona fide fixed or actually paid? (3) What was the market value of the suit land at the time of sale? (4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by conduct? (5) Relief. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 23-4-1986. However, the appeal of respondent-vendee was accepted by the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 21-6-1986 with the result that the suit stood dismissed. Hence this revision petition.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned District Judge has not appraised the evidence and yet allowed the appeal of the respondent and as such the judgment impugned herein being defective in law merits to be set aside. He has taken me through the impugned judgment with particular reference to para. 5 thereof in support of the submission. I find that the contention is well based. Learned District Judge has not at all referred to and discussed the evidence on record and by making casual mention of the statements of P.W.1 Muhammad Ashraf and P.W3 Muhammad Ali, reached the conclusion that the petitioner was estopped to file a suit on account of his conduct. The judgment being perfunctory and violative of mandatory provisions of Order 41, rule 31, C.P.C. cannot be sustained. As a Court of first appeal it was the duty of the learned District Judge to discuss the evidence and state the reasons-for the decision ultimately arrived at by him thereafter. He failed to do so. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that judgment of the learned Civil Judge also suffers from the same defect. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge shows that he has also failed to discuss the evidence and adduce reasons for the conclusion of the case leading to the decreeing of the suit in favour of the petitioner. For what has been said above, there is no option but to accept the revision petition and remand the same to the learned trial Court for decision afresh, in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made hereinbefore and after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing. The case should be decided within a period of one month of the receipt of the copy ' of this judgment by the said learned Court. H.B.T./M-1623/L Revision accepted.