' Petitioner, through the filing of the present revisions petition, has called in question judgment dated 11-5-2000, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, dismissed his appeal and maintained order dated 6-6-1993, passed by the learned trial Court, through which it accepted respondent's application, filed under Order XXXIX, rule 2(3) C.P.C.
2. Briefly stated that the facts of the case are that respondent filed an application, under Order XXXIX, rule 2(3), C.P.C. Against the petitioner, pleading therein, that he filed a suit for permanent injunction, against the petitioner, wherein on 15-8-1991, injunctive order was issued, which was served upon the petitioner on the same day, thus, according to the respondent, the same was in the knowledge of the petitioner. It was further asserted that the petitioner made certain constructions in violation of the said injunctive order and, thus, committed contempt of the Court, which necessitated the filing of the aforenoted application. The petitioner resisted the said application by way of filing the 'reply averring therein, that he completed the boundary wall of the disputed premises before passing and service of the injunctive order, therefore, he did not violate any order of the Court. The learned trial Court framed two issues, recorded The evidence of the parties and accepted respondent's application and convicted the petitioner for six months S.I. And also directed him to restore the possession of the plot and to remove the superstructure, vide- order dated 6-6-1993. Petitioner's appeal before the learned Additional District Judge was also dismissed, vide judgment dated 11-5-2000, hence the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while passing the impugned order/judgment, both the Courts did not take into consideration the documentary as well as oral evidence on record, thus, grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. He has further submitted that both the impugned order/ judgment are not sustainable, as they suffer from legal errors. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent has vigorously argued that both the Courts passed the impugned order/judgment after taking into consideration every aspect of the case, therefore, the concurrent findings of fact are not to be interfered in the revision petition.
4. In view of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I have examined both the order/judgment and find that the learned lower appellate Court failed to decide both the issues in accordance with law, inasmuch as the evidence on record has completely been ignored and has not been appreciated according to established principles of law. It may be added that while deciding the issues, no findings, have been rendered. It is true that the learned Appellate Court has reproduced the statements of the witnesses, produced by the parties, but that does not mean that the evidence of the parties has been discussed or referred to, while deciding the issues. Under the law, while deciding the causes, it is incumbent upon a Court of Jaw to decide the controversy between the parties, after discussing and appreciating the evidence on record, with reference to the facts of the case, law on the subject and issues involved in the case. I find that the learned lower Appellate Court, after reproducing the gist of evidence of both the parties, decided all the issues in a few lines, which, as a matter of fact, should have been decided while carefully taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and law the subject. It would be advantageous to reproduce the so-called findings of the learned Additional District Judge, while reads as follow:-- "Above made appraisal of the evidence of the record led by the respondent concluded in irresistible inferences that appellant was in notice of the status quo order Exh.A1 issued by the Court and he deliberately violated the same by raising construction at the spot. He not only violated the Court order by raising construction thereover but also uttered a derogatory remarks with the Court.
He has rightly been held by the learned trial Court to have violated the Court order and changed the spot position which was rightly ordered by the learned trial Court to be restored by removing superstructure construction, by the appellants. He was also held rightly liable to contempt of Court and sentenced to six months. S.I."
The above reproduction of the portion of the impugned judgment would amply manifest the cursory and casual approach of the learned Additional District Judge, while deciding the valuable rights of the parties and convicting the petitioner, which approach, to say the least, cannot be countenanced under any stretch of imagination. It flows therefrom that the impugned judgment suffers from non-reading of evidence on record and, thus, I am of the considered view that the first Appellate Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction conferred upon it to under the law. It is settled law that if a material document or material evidence is not considered by the lower Courts, this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, can interfere in the matter. If any case-law is needed, judgments reported as Shaukat Nawaz v. Mansab Dad and another (1988 SCM R 851) and Shaheb Khan through legal heirs v. Muhammad Pannah (PLD 1994 SC 162) can be referred.
5. In the above perspective, I have examined the impugned judgment, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, and find that the same is exceptionable, against the established law and definitely calls for interference by this Court, thus I am inclined to exercise revisional jurisdiction of this Court, to set aside the said judgment and to remand the case for the decision of the appeal, afresh.
6. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 11-5-2000 is set aside with no order as to costs. The result would be that the appeal, filed by the petitioner titled "Syed Zulfiqar Hussain Naqvi v. Syed Gulzar Hssain Naqvi" shall deem to be pending before the learned District Judge, Narowal, who shall himself, decide the same afresh, after hearing the parties and of course in accordance with law on the existing record, after duly taking into consideration and discussing the documentary and oral evidence, produced by both the parties.