MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J. - Owing to the identity of facts and the questions involved, Civil Revision No. 747/2005 (Abdul Hameed etc. v. Abdul Razzaq etc.) and Civil Revision No. 2128/2d05 (Abdul Razzaq etc. v. Abdul Hameed etc.) are decided together, In Civil Revision No. 747/2005 respondents' suit for declaration was dismissed by the Trial Court on 31.3.2003. The learned first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 6.1.2005 accepted the appeal, set-aside the judgment and, decree of the Trial Court and remanded the case to the Trial Court for re-decision.
2. In Civil Revision No. 2128/2005 the petitioner's suit for declaration was dismissed by the Trial Court on 31.3.2003 and the appeal was also dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court on 6.1.2005. The Trial Court decided both the suits on one and the same day, on 31.3.2003 and the lower Appellate Court also decided appeals in both the cases on one day i.e. 6.1.2005.
3. On hearing the learned. Counsel for the parties, the record of both the civil revisions in the perspective of the impugned judgments and decrees was examined with their assistance. The scrutiny of the impugned judgments intriguingly revealed that the learned first Appellate Court committed serious error of decision, rendering its judgments incoherent, incomprehensible and, therefore, unsustainable. The Appellate judgment in Civil Appeal No. 105-13 of 2003 being assailed in Civil Revision No. 747/2005 was decided on issues which were not the issues before the Trial Court in Suit No. 144-1 of 2001 from which the appeal had arisen. Similarly the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 106-13 of 2003, the subject-matter of Civil Revision No. 2128/2005, was also not on issues adjudicated upon by the learned Trial Court in Suit No. 143-1 of 2001. There is no connection between, the issues and the decision rendered in the judgments.
4. It appears that the issues in Suit No. 143-1 of 2001 were transposed as issues in Civil Appeal No. 105-13 of 2003 while issues in Suit No. 144-1 of 2001 were erroneously considered as the issues requiring decision in Civil Appeal No. 106-13 of 2003. As such the respective appeal were decided on wrong issues. This error could be the result of consolidated consideration of the two appeals together, may be a slip of procedure or an error of judgment or an inadvertent typographical mistake, yet it made both the impugned judgments and decrees as incoherent. The issues framed by the learned Trial Court in the respective suits culminating in the Trial Courts' judgments and decrees and were the issues under challenge before the first Appellate Court in the appeals filed respectively by the appellants. But the Appellate Court did not give respective judgments and decrees on issues of the suit from which these arose and inter-mixed the issues. The impugned judgments and decrees of the Additional District Judge, Jaranwala were the result of inapplicability of mind or. Inattention or erroneous typographical transposition of issues. Whatever may be the reason, it caused serious miscarriage of justice rendering the impugned judgments and decrees incomprehensible for the litigants as well as for the persons of ordinary or extraordinary prudence.
The Appellate Court committed material irregularity, misapplied itself and mis exercised its jurisdiction in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. A judgment is not a jigsaw puzzle or a guessing game or a riddle to be solved by mind joggling exercises. Standard judgments are error free, concise, consistent, coherent and comprehensible irrespective of the stylistic differences.
Principles, parameters and requirements of judgments are:--
(i) Judgment should contain a concise statement of case, points for determination, decision thereon and reasons for such decision manifesting application of mind by the Judge to . Resolve the issues involved.
(ii) It ought to be self-contained, unambiguous, easily intelligible, lucid, open only to one interpretation and thus leaving nothing to guess work or probabilities on matters under determination.
(iii) It should be -self-speaking, well-reasoned and analytical reflecting due consideration of facts, law and contentions of the parties.
(iv) It should be founded on legal grounds and the evidence on record.
5. The learned counsel for the parties confronted with the paradoxical situation created by the impugned judgments and decrees, jointly prayed for setting aside the same thereby directing rehearing and re-decision of the appeals by the learned first Appellate Court.
6. In view of what has been observed above, both the civil revisions are accepted. The impugned judgments and decrees dated 6.1.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaranwala are set- aside. The appeals shall be deemed to be pending before the learned first Appellate Court who shall redecide the same in accordance with law and in exercise of jurisdiction vesting in the Court of appeal. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad on 30.10.2007 who may decide the appeals himself or may assign the same to any learned Additional District Judge for decision afresh. As the parties have suffered because of the act of the Court, there shall be no order as to the costs.