' SYED TAHIR ALI SHAH, J.--- Through the instant leave petition the order returned by the Chief Court Northern Areas Gilgit, dated 14-11-2007, in C.S.A.-1/07, whereby judgment, dated 17-5-2007, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Astore was recalled has been called in question.
2. Succinctly stated the facts are that Mst. Khairun Nisa the petitioner filed a declaratory suit cum possession for certain amount of landed property entered in Khewat Nos.28 and 30 in Astore District of Northern Areas for the legacy of her deceased brother. The proceedings of the case before the Civil Judge was at stage of framing of the issues when the plaintiff were lady filed an application before the Additional District and Sessions Judge Astore for transfer of the case on the grounds enumerated in such application.
3. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties allowed the application on 18-3-2004. This order was challenged in the Chief Court but the impugned order was upheld. After remand of the case the plaintiff, as record reveals could not make her appearance whereupon the trial Court proceeding ex parte granted an ex parte decree. The two proceedings were challenged before the first appellate Court after the remedies available in the trial Court got exhausted. The first appellate Court vide his judgment, dated 17-5-2007, dismissed the appeal finding it to be time-barred as well as on the point of non-proof of sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
4. Felt aggrieved with such findings as returned by the Additional District and Sessions Judge the respondent/defendant filed an appeal before the Chief Court which was allowed on 14-11-2007, holding the issue of limitation as a technical point hence the instant leave petition.
5. Mr. Javed Iqbal learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Chief Court NAs, while deciding the appeal has altogether ignored the point of limitation and non existing of sufficient cause of delay which were the moot points in the subordinate appellate Court. He further contends that the Court below has over looked the crucial points simply considering it as a technical one and ignored the valuable right accrued to his client during the proceedings.
6. Conversely to the points raised by the petitioner the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order on other grounds however, he candidly conceded that the point of limitation is always considered as a substantive one and is not a mere technicality.
7. Having heard the respective counsel and glanced the contents of impugned order it reflects that the one passed by the Chief Court does not qualify to be termed as a judgment. The Ist appellate Court has decided the appeal on the twin points of limitation and condonation. The impugned order as it reads does not carry even slight discussion on the issues involved. It, at the most can be called a short order, the reason whereof to be advanced later on.
8. An appellate Court must always state its reason for the decision arrived at so that parties be able to determine the line of action and relief and also the higher Courts to determine whether the lower Court has properly understood the case and also for the reason that justice should not only be done but should appear to be done. Judgments, especially in case of reversal must contain definite findings on the question involved and its reason for reversal. It should be evident from the judgment that the Judge was conscious of the matter involved and the judgment has been pronounced on the basis of record.
9. In the circumstances discussed above, we are not in a position to express our view safely regarding the judgment returned with regard to the issues involved in the case unless a judgment is delivered by the lower Court with reasons for the decision under the relevant provisions of law.
The order impugned therefore, cannot hold the field. Petition for leave is converted into appeal and accepted. Order passed by the Chief Court, dated 24-11-2007 is therefore, set at naught and case is remitted back to Chief Court to decide the matter treating it as revision petition followed by a well reasoned judgment in the light of the parameters of relevant law and the guidelines highlighted above. Parties are directed to appear before the Chief Court Northern Areas, on 30-5-2008. No order as to costs. File of this Court be consigned to record after completion.