2010 PLP 827 (SCMR)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ.

This petition has been filed for review of the judgment dated 26-2-2008 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.1781 of 2000.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued the case and pointed out that the judgment passed by the appellate Court i.e. District Judge dated 21-2-1989 and the judgment of the High Court dated 5-10-2000 were at variance, therefore, while disposing of the appeal it was incumbent upon this Court to record findings independently in respect of the points involved in the case. In this behalf he drew our attention inter alia to one of the points noted in the judgment "whether learned Additional District Judge has given a correct finding that the land purchased by appellants Nos.7, 8 and 12 was so purchased in exercise of right of pre-emption and if so whether the sale in their favour qualifies for protection against the suit filed by appellants Nos.1 and

2. He further pointed out that this question was examined but without having taken into consideration the pleadings and material available on record has been replied as "we agree with the learned Judge of the High Court that Additional District Judge has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction while setting aside the judgment and decree recorded by learned trial Court in favour of respondents." When we inquired from the learned counsel for the respondent as to whether in such situation when judgments were at variance, was it not necessary to record the findings independently by giving the reasons for agreeing with the High Court and disagreeing with the Additional District Judge, who exercised jurisdiction as First Appellate Court. His answer was that because this Court agreed with the High Court, it was sufficient finding in this behalf. We are afraid this answer is not satisfactory for the reason that if the situation is so, then it would mean that appeal could be disposed of by writing one sentence by approving the judgment whereas, Court is seized with the matter, either arising out of the petition or on direct appeal, it is incumbent upon it to give judgment on the basis of pleadings and material available on record and then record its conclusion with logical reasons while agreeing with the High Court or the First Appellate Court. In this behalf reference may be made to the case of Madan Gopal and others v. Maran Bepari and others PLD 1969 SC 617.

3. Thus, we are of the opinion that the ground so urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is sufficient to exercise powers under Article 188 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. As a result of above discussion, review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 26-2-2008 passed by this Court is recalled. Consequently appeal is ordered to be restored to its original number and be fixed for regular hearing on 10th March, 2010 at Sr. No.1, as this matter is lingering on for the last so many years.

4. Parties are left to bear their own costs. S.A.K./M-13/SC Review accepted.