1. ' This is a second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant against the order of the lower Courts by which the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. A suit on the basis of adverse possession by way of prescription for the suit land was brought in the Court of Additional Sub-Judge, Muzaffarabad.
2. On the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed as follows, namely :-
(1) Whether the possession of the plaintiff over the land in suit has ripened into (ownership) for a period of being more than 12 years?
0. P. P.
(2) In case issue No. 1 is proved; whether sale-deed dated 29-1-1973 is against law and void? 0. P. P.
(3) Whether the plaintiff had purchased the land in suit by way of an oral sale from Lal Khan and Muhammad Afzal Khan? 0. P. P.
(4) Whether plaintiff has made improvements over the land in suit, if so, to what extent? 0. P. P.
(5) Whether the suit without relief of possession is not tenable? 0. P. P.
(6) Relief.
3. ' The Additional Sub-Judge reproduced the summary of the statements of the witnesses of the parties and decided Issue No. 1 simply saying that this issue could not be proved by the plaintiff from the statements of his witnesses. This was all said about the witnesses and in a way the possession of the plaintiff was also held over some portion of land comprising Survey No, 341/156 measuring 14 kanals out of which 5 kanals and 10 marlas were purchased by Abdur Rehman defendant No, 3 under 'min' No, 397/341/156. There is no finding on Issue No. 1 and as it was decided against the plaintiff without appreciation of the evidence brought on record by the parties-oral as well as documentary. No hint was even made to the documentary evidence on record by the Additional Sub-Judge while deciding Issue No. 1. Not only as a matter of law but also as a matter of fact there is no finding given on Issue No. 1 by the Additional Sub-Judge, and there was no finding at all on remaining of the issues except Issue No, 4.
4. ' The Additional Sub-Judge wrote on Issues Nos. 2 and 3 that as the plaintiff could not prove Issue No. 1, there was no need to give any finding on these issues. On Issue No, 5 it was written that onus of this issue was on defendants who alongwith their witnesses have proved that the suit of the plaintiff is not tenable. In the end the Sub-Judge has written that after the discussion (whereas there is no discussion), he has reached the conclusion that plaintiff failed to prove his case. It all shows that Additional. Sub-Judge was unable to write judgment as warranted by law. On appeal to the District Judge it also met the same fate. The order of the Additional Sub-Judge was dittoed by the District Judge without writing a judgment as required by law. What a judgment is It is for the Additional Sub-Judge and the District Judge to go through section 2, subsection (9) of C. P. C.
5. Alongwith Order XX, rules 4 and 5 of the same Code.
6. ' I have purposely used the words 'orders' for the term judgments used by the Presiding Officers of the lower Court because the impugned orders do not form judgments. In the circumstances of the cases an application was rightly moved by Abdur Rehman defendant in the trial Court for appointment of a commission for determination of the followings points, namely :- {{URDU TEXT}} In view of this matter, this appeal is accepted and the impugned orders of the Courts below are hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court with the direction that a local inspection of the property in dispute may be made by the Additional Sub-Judge himself, if possible and in case he is unable to make a local inspection of the spot for ascertaining the above-noted points a commission may accordingly be appointed so as to determine the points formulated by the trial Court itself under its order dated 18-6-1978 so that appreciation of the evidence could accordingly be made by the trial Court at the time of the decision of the case.
7. ' After doing so, the arguments in the case will be heard and decision shall then be given according to law by the trial Court.