' MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BHATTI, J.---This revision petition is directed against the judgment-decree, dated 3-12-2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal Camp at Shakargarh whereby the judgment-decree, dated 23-6-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Shakargarh in favour of the petitioner Iftikhar Hussain regarding the suit for possession through pre-emption has been reversed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption in the learned trial Court alleging therein that the land measuring 15 kanals, 5 Marlas bearing Khewat No,42/100 to 103, situated in Mauza Kotli Soodkan, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal was owned by Mst. Shahnaz Fatima (real sister of the petitioner). She sold this land in favour of the respondents (Allah Rakha, Akbar Ali, Liaqat Ali and Habib Ahmed) vide impugned oral sale on 23-8-1995 for a consideration of Rs,50000 but the respondents got incorporated Rs,1,30,000 as its sale price just to defeat and frustrate the right of pre-emption of the petioner which he, resultantly, exercised through a suit for possession on having come to know about this sale on 29-8-1995 at 11-00 p.m. In the presence of Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Ashraf, P.Ws. The respondents submitted their written statement and out of the divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed necessary issues.
3. Both the parties led their respective oral as well as documentary evidence whereafter learned trial Court, on having heard the parties, decreed the suit in favour of petitioner vide the impugned judgment and decree, dated 23-6-2000 which were assailed of by the respondents in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal Camp at Shakargarh who accepted it vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 3-12-2001. Hence, this revision petition which was opposed by the respondents counsel.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.##TE#
5. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the learned appellate Court did not discuss at all the available evidence on record in its entirety and merely on the basis of taking general over-view of the whole case reversed the well reasoned findings of the learned trial Court in a slipshod manner without touching upon important pieces of evidence on each issue referred to before it by both the sides, inasmuch as, including issues of `Talb-i- Muwathibat' and `Talb-i-Isshad', no specific findings were given on other issues decided on merits by the learned trial Court. Further submits that the learned appellate Court also failed to point out of details of the discrepancies that too formed basis of his findings to impress that it was a fit case for remand to the learned appellate Court for fresh decision of the appeal, whereas learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no need to passing any remand order even if the evidence was not discussed by the learned appellate 'Court on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make mention of the 'place' in his plaint where the Majlis took place in which he acquired knowledge of the sale transaction under reference. According to him, this lapse on the part of the petitioner is fatal and needs no further discussion or elaboration on each issue on remand. In this regard reliance is placed on Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs, and others (PLD 2007 SC 302). But fact of the matter is that the learned counsel for the respondents could not substantially controvert the contentions of petitioner's counsel that the judgment handed down by the learned appellate Court was squarely in violation of the provisions as contained under Order XX Rule 5 C.P.C. Requiring the appellate Court to discuss the whole evidence while recording its findings on merits of the case including, of course, the above aspect of the case/contention now raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. In this regard reliance is placed on Aamar Tufail v. Muhammad Sadiq on behalf of his Legal Heirs 2006 CLD 91 Multan Bench, Multan).
6. It may be mentioned here that the principle laid down in Fazal Subhan and 11 others v. Mst. Sahib Jamala and others (PLD 2005 SC 977) was discussed and approved in Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs and others (PLD 2007 SC 302) (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents. In the said case the Hon'ble apex Court had drawn a line in respect of furnishing the particulars of place, time and date by the pre-emptor. For facility of reference the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-- "In nutshell, in a case in which Talb-i-Muwathibat was made beyond the period of two weeks, from the date of transaction of the sale, it would be essential for the pre-emptor to disclose the specific date of his knowledge and place of majlis in which he made Talb-i-Muwathibat, failing which neither Talb-iMuwathibat nor Talb-i-Ishhad would be proved."
7. Referring the above criteria the learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that had the learned appellate Court gone through the entire evidence and appraised it critically, it could have found the case otherwise and so the petitioner's rights shall be prejudiced if the said Court is not directed to rewrite the judgment after re-hearing both the parties in the light of entire evidence on record.
There is lot of substance in this stance. Therefore, having agreed with this contention of the petitioner's counsel, I understand that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Appellate Court are in utter disregard of the provisions as contained in Order XX Rule 5, C.P.C. Making it a fit case for remand for decision afresh on merits touching upon the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents, if so raised during re-hearing of the appeal and the case-law cited above.
8. In the light of what has been discussed above this civil revision is accepted, and the judgment and decree, dated 3-12-2001 passed by the learned appellate Court are set aside. Resultantly, the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, dated 23-6-2000, shall be deemed to be pending for adjudication afresh. Parties are, therefore, directed to appear for re-hearing before the learned District Judge, Narowal on 27-4-2009 who may keep this appeal on the files of his own Court or entrust it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction for its decision afresh positively within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
There is no order as to costs.##TE#