MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. --- Through this revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated 04.05.1999, whereby the decree passed by the learned Trial Court dated 30.01.1994 has been reversed and the suit of the petitioners for possession through partition and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the. Learned first Appellate Court has passed the impugned judgment without discussing the evidence of the petitioners available on the record as Ex.P.W.6/2 to Ex.P.W.6/4, which are plaint, written statement and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court in the earlier round of litigation.
Relying on 2009 YLR 2410 (Hafeez Ahmad and another v. Divisional Canal Officer, Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal and 5 others), 1997 CLC 1549 (Nadar A.I v. Mst. Hussain Bibi and 5 others), 1992 M LD 1782 (Trustees of the Port of Karachi and another v. Faquir Muhammad), 1992 M LD 1758 (Wazir Khan v. A. Aziz Burney and 2 others and 2003 CLC 504 (Province of the Punjab through Secretary Irrigation and Power Department P.W.D. Secretariat Old Anarkali, Lahore and 3 others v. Ch. Mehraj Din & Co. Through Proprietor contends that since the learned first Appellate Court has failed to give its findings without discussing the evidence of the parties, the judgment of the learned first Appellate Court cannot be lawfully sustained.
3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the judgment as well as the available record of the case.
4. I do agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgment of the learned first Appellate Court lacks called for discussion of the evidence of the petitioners, as referred above.
Since serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioners, as the judgment of the learned Trial Court has been set aside without giving self-determining findings based on evidence, therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge has got no validity in the eyes of law. As the same has been passed illegally by violating of the provision of Order 41, Rule 31, CPC. The learned lower Appellate Court not only committed illegality by omitting to discuss the evidence of the parties but also wronged by not giving its own reasons for setting aside the judgment of the learned Trial Court. As the learned first Appellate Court has failed in exercising its jurisdiction in a proper and judicious manner, this civil revision is accepted and the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.05.1999 is set aside. Resultantly, the appeal of the respondents shall be deemed to be pending before the learned first Appellate Court, which shall decide the same afresh after hearing the parties and considering/appraising evidence available on the record in the light of already framed issues within a period of three months after receipt of this judgment. Learned first Appellate Court is also directed to issue the notice to the appellant and decide the appeal strictly in accordance with law after providing the opportunity of hearing. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed and the case is remanded back.
5. Since no one appeared on behalf of the respondents notwithstanding the fact that the name of the learned counsel for the respondents was duly notified in the cause list, this Court was left with no option except to decide this old matter, albeit on merits, after meticulous examination of the record of the case. Parties are directed to appear before the learned first Appellate Court on 03.11.2011.
Civil revision /case remanded.