Facts leading to this civil revision are that the petitioners-Rashid Masih etc. filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction contending that they are owners in possession of the suit property, which falls in their ownership and possession through a private partition, they have constructed a community center and six shops thereon and were receiving benefits from the same, whereas the respondents were bent upon to construct a Sewing School on the suit land, which was illegal and against the interest of the petitioners. The suit was contested by the respondents on the grounds that the suit property was jointly owned and possessed by Christian Community and the petitioners Rashid Masih etc. have no concern with the same. Out of pleadings of the parties certain issues were framed, both the parties produced evidence in support of their respective claims and finally the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 15.04.1996, which was assailed in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, who vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.1999 dismissed the same and both the judgments and decrees are impugned in the present civil revision.
2. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the learned Courts below did not apply their independent judicial mind while dismissing the petitioners' suit and misread the evidence on record. Further submits that the concurrent findings are not sacrosanct and can be interfered with in civil revision. Adds that the petitioners are in possession of the suit land for the last one century whereas the revenue record was not examined by both the Courts below, resulting into serious miscarriage of justice.
3. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents despite publication of notice in the newspaper, hence they are proceeded against ex parte.
4. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
5. Without going into details, suffice it to say that the learned trial Court framed as many as eight issues, which are as under:--
1. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi and cause of action to bring this suit? OPD.
2. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their word and conduct to bring this suit? OPD.
5. Whether he defendants are entitled to special costs U/S 35-A of CPC? OPD.
6. Whether the suit is had for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
7. Whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of suit property, if so whether they are entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP.
8. Relief.
6. The learned Additional District Judge while deciding the appeal did not give issue-wise findings, which is a sufficient ground to hold that the appellate judgment cannot be termed a judicial order, as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Gouranga Mohan Sikdar vs. The Controller of Import and Export and 2 others (PLD 1970 SC 158) and. Mollah Ejahar Ali vs. Government of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1970 SC 173), wherein it is held,-- "This Court was at pains to point out that a judicial order must be a speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court has applied its mind to the resolution of the issues involved for their proper adjudication because litigants who bring their disputes to the law Courts with the incidental hardships and expenses involved do expect a patient and judicious treatment of their cases and their determination by proper orders."
7. In the circumstances of the case, when the petitioners are insisting that they are in possession of the suit land for decades and decades, their possession is confirmed in the revenue record, revenue record was not requisitioned by the learned trial Court, their adverse possession is established, almost eight issues were framed but the learned Additional District Judge did not give findings issue-wise, hence I feel it appropriate to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge and remand the case to him for deciding afresh. Resultantly, the appeal of the petitioners-Rashid Masih etc. shall be treated as pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, who shall decide the same hearing both the parties and through a speaking judicial order.
Civil revision is allowed in the above terms.