' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.-Through this single order, I propose to decide Civil Revision No.2500 of 2005 and Civil Revision No.2499 of 2005 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the cases.
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 5-10-1998, respondent Mirza Ehsan Ullah Baig filed a suit for redemption of the property detailed in the plaint against the present petitioners. The property in dispute was mortgaged through a registered deed dated 17-4-1986. Petitioners contested the suit by pleading that suit-land after the mortgage was sold by the respondent plaintiff to their father Muhammad Tufail in consideration of Rs. 9,00,000. Rs.8,00,000 was paid in cash while Rs. 1,00,000 was deducted against mortgage money.
2. On 15-4-1998, petitioners' father Muhammad Tufail filed a declaratory suit claiming himself to be owner in possession of the suit-land on the basis of above referred sale. This suit was contested by respondent Mirza Ehsan Baig. Both the suits were consolidated by the learned trial Court. After recording evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 7-5- 2004 dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners while that of the respondent was decreed. Both these decrees were assailed by the petitioners through two separate appeals which were dismissed vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 5-8-2005. The same are being assailed through the instant two separate civil revisions.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that judgment of the learned appellate Court cannot be termed to be a judgment considering all the factual and legal aspects of the matter after consultation with the record and the evidence. It is further submitted that through oral evidence it is established on record, that the property in question was sold by respondent in favour of Muhammad Tufail father of the petitioners. D.W.l, D.W.2 and D.W.3 are unanimous on the point of payment of sale consideration. This aspect was not appropriately looked into by both the Courts below. In view of a complete sale in favour of father of the petitioners, the question of redemption of property stood automatically resolved in view of the fact that the amount of redemption stood adjusted in the sale consideration. It is lastly argued that respondent did not appear as his own witness in the affirmative to raise his claim,
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments and supported the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The fact of mortgage through registered deed Exh.P.l is admitted by the petitioners, therefore, mere tendering of the mortgage deed by the respondent as Exh.P.l has established their case seeking redemption. It was only for the present petitioners who have taken up the plea of sale in favour of their father to have established the fact of sale through reliable evidence. It was claimed by the respondent that the sale was oral. In the written statement, no detail of sale i.e. Time, date or place or even the witnesses in whose presence it was effected was mentioned. Even the D.Ws. Have not detailed the necessary ingredients of sale. In the absence of any documentary evidence of sale, a sale through oral means could only be established through unimpeachable and definite exactitude of all minor details which is missing in the instant case, therefore, the petitioners have failed to establish their defence in the case of the respondent. Likewise their consolidated suit for declaration on the basis of the sale plea also merits dismissal.
8. For what has been stated above, I find no merit in these petitions. Both the revision petitions . Are accordingly dismissed.
9. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to observe that the appellate judgment recorded by the learned Additional District Judge is not in consonance with the law. Appeal is a right. The learned appellate Court should have considered and evaluated the entire evidence before coming to the conclusion and should have attended the contentions raised by the parties. However it would not be in the fitness of things and in the interest of justice to remand this case at this belated stage for rewriting of the judgment by the appellate Court. I have myself gone through the evidence and the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Copy of this order be sent to the Presiding Officer of the learned appellate Court wherever he is. He is directed to be more careful in future.