' The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs,1,07,000 against the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge, 1st Class, Sargodha on 31- 1-1996. The contents of the plaint reveal that petitioner No,2/ defendant No,1 was selected to the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) College, Sargodha for training subject to the agreement, dated 3-3-1993 duly submitted by petitioner No,3/defendant No,3 as guarantor. According to the agreement, defendant No,1/petitioner No,2 as student and defendant No,3/petitioner No,3 being guarantor has signed the said agreement. Defendant No,2/petitioner No,1 submitted the indemnity bond. The contents of the plaint further reveals that the petitioners/ defendants were bound to comply with the rules and regulations of the college and fully responsible as per agreement and indemnity bond. Petitioner No,2/defendant No,1 joined the PAF College, Sargodha on 9-4-1993 as student and absented himself from the college on 23-8-1995 without any lawful excuse. The contents of the plaint further reveal that during the deliberate absence of defendant No,1/petitioner No,2, his mother requested for the withdrawal of her son on 28-8-1995 through a telegram whereas the respondent/plaintiff repeatedly intimated the parents of the petitioner No,2/defendant No,1 during his absence vide letter, dated 28-8-1995, 2-9-1995 and 30-9-1995 to clear the dues as per agreement and indemnity bond. Letter dated' 9-10-1995 was sent to the mother of defendant No, l/peitioner No,2 to clear the dues and liabilities as per AFI 11/92 failing which PAF had the right to take the legal action against the defendants/petitioners. The contents of the plaint further reveal that petitioner No,2/defendant No,1 absented himself from the college without any lawful excuse.
Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff legally entitled to get demanded amount from the petitioners/ defendants as per agreement and indemnity bond. The petitioners filed written statement and controverted the allegations levelled against them in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-- "ISSUES
(1) Whether the alleged agreement, dated 3-3-1993 is a forged document? OPD
(2) Whether the indemnity bond in question is defective, thus not enforceable against the defendants? OPD
(3) Whether the defendants are not bound by the agreement and indemnity bond in question?
OPD
(4) Whether the defendants are liable to pay the requisite amount to the plaintiff? OPP
(5) Whether the suit has been filed without any locus standi and cause of action? OPD
(6) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
(7) Whether the suit bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the parties? OPD
(8) Relief."
' The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 13-7-2000. The respondent/plaintiff being aggrieved filed appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha who accepted the same vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 23-9-2003. Hence the present revision petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that judgments of both the Courts below are at- variance. He submits that the first appellate Court had not adverted to the reasons of the trial Court. He further submits that the respondent was failed to prove the agreement executed between the parties in terms of Article 79 read with Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 which was noted by the trial Court and this fact was not considered by the first appellate Court in the impugned judgment. In support of his contention, he relied upon Muhammad Yaqoob and other v. Naseer Hussain and other PLD 1995 Lahore 395. He further submits that agreement was executed between the petitioners and respondent on behalf of the President of Pakistan, therefore, the suit was not filed by the competent person and the suit has to be filed by the respondent through Federation in terms of Article 174 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 79 and Order XXVII, rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. In support of his contention, he relief upon Government of Sindh through Land Acquisition Officer and another v.
Noor Muhammad and 2 others 1996 CLC 412, Punjab Province through Deputy Director, Mineral Development, Jhelum v. Malik Shahbaz Khan 1980 CLC 857, Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v. Gul Zaman and 8 others PLD 1993 SC (AJ&K) 8 and Government of Sindh through Secretary Housing, Karachi and 2 others v. Haji Abdul Rehman and 14 others PLD 1992 Kar.
150. He further submits that the trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent on the basis of indemnity bond without adverting to the agreement which was executed between the parties which contain terms and conditions.
' The learned counsel of the respondent submits that the trial Court decided issue No,7 against the petitioner which was upheld by the first appellate Courts, therefore, plea of petitioners' counsel that the suit was not filed by the competent person is against concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below, therefore, revision petition to this plea is not maintainable. He further submits that the first appellate Court was justified to reverse the findings of the trial Court after proper appreciation of the evidence which is duty/obligation of the first appellate Court to reappraisal of evidence while deciding the appeal under section 96 of C.P.C. The document in question was admitted by the petitioners, therefore, Articles 79 and 17 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 are attracted in the present case.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
4. It is settled principle of law that it is the duty and obligation of the first appellate Court to advert to the findings of the trial Court and reappraisal of the evidence on the record while reversing the findings of the trial Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the trial Court dismissed the suit on the basis of documents in question were not proved by the respondent in terms of Articles 79 and 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 as is evident from paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment of the trial Court dated 13-7-2003 whereas the appellate Court did not advert to this aspect of the case as is evident from paragraphs Nos.6 to 8 of the impugned judgment, dated 23-9-2003. The Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the principle qua reversing the findings by the first appellate Court of the trial Court in Madan Gopal and 4 others v. Maran Bepari and 3 others PLD 1969 SC 617. Relative observation is as follows:-- "The learned appellate Court, however, accepted these receipts without adverting to the very cogent reasoning given by the trial Judge for their rejection. The High Court was, therefore, right in its view that a finding reached by the first appellate Court which totally ignored the reasons given by the trial Judge for a contrary finding, could not be upheld in second appeal."
' It is also settled principle of law that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution.
' The first appellate Court has decided the case in violation of the parameters prescribed by the Honourable Supreme Court, therefore, the first appellate Court has committed material illegality and irregularity as per law laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in Kanwal Nain and 3 others v.
Fateh Khan and others PLD 1983 SC 53 and Shaukat Nawaz v. Mansab Dad and another 1988 SCMR 851.
' In view of what has been discussed above, the revision petition is accepted, meaning thereby the appeal filed by the respondent shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court is directed to decide the case afresh in terms of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Madan Gopal's case (supra). The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Sargodha on 16-10-2004 who is directed to decide the case either himself or any other Additional District Judge, concerned who is directed to decide the appeal within six months after receiving order of this Court. The parties and their counsel are directed to co-operate with the first appellate Court so that the matter may be finally decided within the prescribed period. In case any of the parties/their counsel fails to co-operate with the first appellate Court, then the first appellate Court is directed to invoke penal provision against that party.