' This is an application in revision under section 115, C. P. C. To impugn appellate judgment of learned District Judge, Sargodha.
2. The petition succeeds on a short ground of law. It will, therefore, be unnecessary to encumber this judgment even with a condensed resume of circumstances leading to the institution of the suit out of which this revisional application arises. The land in suit has been subject matter of a long drawn and chequered litigation. The petitioners filed this suit for a declaration that they were owners in possession of the land in suit. The petitioners and the defendant-respondents claim their title to the land under sales in their favour by different vendors. The defendant respondents joined issues that they were owners of the land. The petitioners had also applied for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the defendant-respondents from interference with their possession over the land. The application was rejected by the trial Court on 16-4-76. Learned trial Judge was not satisfied that the material placed before him sustained even prima facie the claim of the petitioner that the land was in their possession. He also took notice of the fact that the petitioners had not filed copies of relevant revenue record, and the omission should give rise to an adverse inference against the petitioners. The petitioners went in appeal before learned District Judge which was also dismissed on 15-9-1976. Judgment of learned District Judge running into seven pages is devoted merely to recitals of facts and numerous contentions of the parties, Learned District Judge expressed his view in the concluding paragraph of the judgment as below:- "I have considered the facts and contentions. Without going into merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the contention of appellants relevant to this appeal cannot beep held at this stage, while the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents carry considerable force. The appeal is without substance and is dismissed."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the appellate judgment could not be treated as "judgment" within the meaning of law. The appeal was disposed of by learned District Judge arbitrarily. This perfunctory judgment shows unmistakably that the learned District Judge had neither properly appreciated the case nor had decided it after applying his mind to the circumstances relevant to the grant or otherwise of relief claimed in appeal nor he had discussed the necessary requisites for exercise of injunction jurisdiction. The contention is really indefeasible.
Merit in law of the impugned judgment should be also evident from the fact that learned counsel for the respondents have expressed their inability to defend the judgment.
' Order XLI, rule 31, C. P. C. Enjoins the Court of appeal to state in the judgment the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. The object requiring the Appellate Court to record a self-evident judgment duly supported by elaborate reasoning is two fold, namely, (i) to afford the parties an opportunity of knowing and understanding the grounds of the decision with a view to enable them to exercise if they see fit and so advised for seeking further remedy of second appeal under section 100, C. P. C. Or that of revision under section 115, C. P. C. And
(ii) to enable the High Court to Judge whether the Court of first appeal had independently considered the case with a clear consciousness of relevant points which arose for adjudication.
The provisions of Order XLI, rule 31 C. P. C. Are imperative and the judgment which is not in accordance with it is bad and c illegal. Rahim Shah v. Ishaq (1). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have in Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan (2), disapproved strongly of perfunctory orders in judicial proceedings. It was observed that "a judicial order must be a speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court has applied its mind in the resolution of the issues involved for their proper adjudication. The ultimate result may be reached by a laborious effort, but if the final order does not bear an imprint of that effort and on the contrary discloses arbitrariness of that action, the feeling with its painful result that justice has neither been done nor seems to have been done is inescapable. When the order of a lower Court points no reasons, the Appellate Court is deprived of the benefit of the views of the lower Court and is unable to appreciate the process by which the decision has been reached". On the basis of the above authority, similar view was taken in Abdul Qadir v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Lyallpur (3), that disposal of cases in summary manner without giving any reasons or resolving points of controversy reduces judicial process to authoritarian decree.
' The case of Muhammad Murad v. Khanzadi and others (4), is an all forms with the instant case. In that case also the judgment of Court of first appeal began with reciting the allegations in the plaint and in the written statement. After this the issues framed by trial Judge were copied out and it was stated
(1) PLD 1954 Pesh. 92 (2) PLD 1970 SC 173
(3) PLD 1975 Lab. 44 (4) PLD 1959 13 J 1 ' that because of the decision on certain issues the suit be dismissed. Then the main grounds of appeal were copied out after which it was remarked that he (appellate Judge) had gone through the evidence and heard the counsel for the parties. This was followed by four or five sentences copied from the judgment of trial Court. After this it was stated that the appellate Judge did not find any ground for differing with the decision of the trial Judge and dismissed the appeal. It was held that the judgment of Appellate Court was very unsatisfactory and cannot be considered to be a judgment at all.
4. Accordingly, judgment of learned District Judge is set aside as illegal, and bad in law. Revision is accepted and the case is remitted to learned District Judge with the direction that he will hear the parties afresh and dispose of the appeal by means of elaborate judgment as required by law.
Parties to appear before him on 15-11-78 for fixation of date of hearing in the appeal which shall not exceed 4/5 weeks. Status quo to continue until further orders by learned District Judge.