' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide C.R. No.782 of 2001 and C.R. No.783 of 2001 as some common questions are involved.
2. For the orders I propose to pass in both these civil revisions, I will not be referring to the pleaded facts in much detail. Suffice it to say that Mst. Ghulam Fatima petitioner in C.R. No.782 of 2001 challenged inheritance Mutation No.181 attested on 12-12-1974 pertaining to the estate of Mst. Noori.
According to her, she was her daughter but stood excluded. In C.R. No.783 of 2001, the respondents Sultan Khan, etc. Filed a suit against the petitioners challenging inheritance Mutation No.236 attested on 15-12-1988 in respect of the estate of Mst. Kapoori, the widow of Aroora. According to them, Mst. Noori had died unwedded and Ghulam Fatima is not her daughter and had been wrongly given a share in the estate of Mst. Kapoori, the mother of Mst. Noori. The suits were contested inter se. These were separately tried. The suit filed by Mst. Ghulam Fatima was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 31-5-2000 while the suit filed by the respondents in C.R.No. 783 of 2001 was decreed on the said date. First appeals filed in both the cases were dismissed by a learned A.D.J., Lodhran, on 19-7-2001.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the very beginning contends with reference to the judgment recorded by the learned Court of first appeal that it is no judgment at all and certainly not a judgment in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the judgment has been rendered with reference to the contents of the trial Court judgments and sufficiently decides the first appeals.
4. I have gone through the copies of the records. Both the cases involved question of inheritance and primarily the relationship inter se Ghulam Fatima and Mst. Noori claimed by her to be her mother and similarly the other question involved was as to whether Aroora the husband of Mst.
Kapoori did or did not marry another lady who bore her the respondents in C.R. No.783 of 2001.
5. Both the judgments recorded by the learned. First appellate Court have been recorded in a sterieo type manner. The contents of the pleadings, the issues, particulars of the evidence have been reproduced. The contentions of both the learned counsel have been reproduced. Thereafter, the matter has been decided for reasons in para.11 of both the judgments. I find that not a single piece of evidence either oral or written has been discussed by the learned Court of appeal and the result is that he has failed to consider some very vital aspect of the case. I will not be going in much detail but I may point out that there is no mention at all in the entire judgment of a previous statement of the person who appeared as the star witness for the opposite party, namely, Shaukat Hussain son Of Sultan Ahmad. He was confronted with the said statement Exh.D.1 and he was unable to deny having made the same. Now that is more important is that there is no mention at all of the said previous statement and the said admission or non-denial thereof by the said witness in the trial Court judgments as well but while appraising the said judgment (which constitutes about 50% of the reasoning in para-11 of the appellate Court judgment in both the cases), the said significant aspect has been completely ignored. To my mind, the learned A.D.J. Has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vesting in him as a Court of first appeal and as such being a Court of law as well as of fact. Both the civil revisions are allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees in both the cases passed by the learned A.D.J., Lodhran, are set aside. The result would be that both the first appeals filed by the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending before the learned District Judge, Lodhran, in whose Court the parties shall appear on 24511-2005. The records will be requisitioned and the learned District Judge shall either himself proceed further in the matter or entrust the appeals to a learned A.D.J. Who shall hear the parties, considerthe entire evidence on record, after reading the same and decide both the appeals afresh. No orders as to costs.
6 A copy of this judgment be remitted to the learned District Judge, Lodhran, immediately.