' ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.---This Civil Revision under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-4-2005 and 18-4-2005, respectively, passed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Mirpur Matheler, District Ghotki whereby the Civil Appeal No.34 of 2002 (Re: Choudhry Muhammad Shafi and others v. Government of Sindh and others), filed by the applicants against the judgment and decree dated 19-2-2002, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ubauro, District Ghotki in F.C. Suit No.123 of 1997 (Old F.C. Suit No. 110 of 1993) was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with the following prayers:--
(a) To declare the orders of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 dated 16-6-1991, 14-11-1973 and 2-2-1972, respectively as null and void, illegal ultra vires and without lawful authority and jurisdiction.
(b) To declare that the mutation entries in respect of the survey numbers mentioned in para No.6 of the plaint reverted by the defendant No.5 .On 4-2-1:972 on the basis of the illegal order of defendant No.4 dated 2-2-1972 is illegal mala fide and without jurisdiction.
(c) To direct by way of mandatory injunction to the defendant No.5 to revive the mutation entries in respect of the survey numbers mentioned in para No.6 of the plaint in favour of the plaintiffs after cancelling all the subsequent entries kept by him after 4-2-1972.
(d) To restrain the defendant No.5 from keeping further any mutation entry in favour of anybody else in respect of the disputed survey in respect of disputed numbers mentioned in para No.6 of the plaint by way of permanent injunction.
(e) To restrain the defendant No.5 and further subsequent purchasers of the suit-land if any from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the disputed land mentioned in para No.6 of the plaint by way of permanent injunction.
(f) The cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs.
(g) Any other equitable relief which this Hon'able court deems just and proper under circumstances of the case.
(h) To declare that the subsequent entries if any in respect of the disputed land after 4-2-1970 as illegal and order for its cancellation.
3. The civil suit was contested only by the defendant No.6, who filed his written statement, while the remaining defendants were declared ex parte by the learned trial Court. The defendant No.6 in his written statement denied the plaintiffs' claim. From divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 16 issues. The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The learned trial Court, on assessment of the evidence, dismissed the applicants/ plaintiffs' suit with compensatory costs of Rs.25,000.00, holding that their claim was on false footings.
4. The applicants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, preferred Civil Appeal No.34 of 2002 before the District Judge, Sukkur. The appeal was heard and dismissed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Mirpur Mathelo, District Ghotki. Hence, this revision application.
5. I have heard Mr. Parya Ram Vaswa ni, the learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Jamshed Ahmed Faiz, the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Memon, the learned State counsel and perused the record.
6. Mr. Parya Ram Vaswa ni, the learned counsel for the applicants has raised a preliminary objection to the approach made by the learned IV" Additional District Judge, Mirpur Mathelo as he failed to comply with the requisitions of an appellate judgment mentioned in Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C. He also argued on merit of the case. While, the learned counsel for the respondents supporting the judgment of learned appellate Court mainly argued that there are concurrent findings of lower Courts below. Learned State counsel adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents.
7. From the perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned appellate Court, it appears that the learned appellate Court has passed the impugned judgment ignoring the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 C.P.C. In its letter and spirit, as the appellate Court did not frame the point for determination, nor given findings on such A points, despite of the fact that the learned trial Court had framed 16 issues. Even if the learned appellate Court was of the opinion that the judgment and decree of learned trial Court did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, at least, such point for determination should have been framed. Strictly speaking the judgment of learned appellate Court cannot be said to be a judgment of the appellate Court at all within the meaning of Order XLI, Rule 31 C . P. C .
8. It is now well-settled principle of law that the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 of C.P.C. Is mandatory in nature and should be followed to enable the appellate Court to decide the matter in accordance with law. Where appellate Court over-looks, ignores and fails to consider evidence on record or the order of appellate Court lacks application of judicious mind, it would amount to failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 of C.P.C. It has been held by this Court in the case of Juma Khan v. Mst. Shamim and others, (1992 CLC 1022) that the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 C.P.C. Are mandatory and the judgment of appellate Court has to set out points for determination, record the decision thereon and give its own reasons for the said decision. Outlining the significance of said provisions of C.P.C., it has further held by this Court Juma Khan's case (supra) that the legislature has laid down these rules so that either the second appellate Court or the Revisional Court should be in position to find out the track traversed by the appellate Court and it cannot run away from its onerous duties of recording the findings of the fact and/or discussing the evidence.
9. Since I am of the view that it is a perfect case for remanding to the learned appellate Court for passing the judgment and decree after framing points for determination, I leave off myself from - assessing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the merit of the case as, in my estimation, it may prejudice the case of either party before the appellate Court. However, to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that there are concurrent findings of lower Courts below in this case, I would like to express my views that the concurrent findings cannot be considered sacrosanct in a situation where the rights of the parties are not determined in accordance with law. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as a matter of fact, is meant to rectifying the errors made by the subordinate Courts.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this revision application is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court are set aside and the case is remanded to the Court of IVth Additional District Judge, Mirpur Mathelo, with directions to the said Court to pass a de novo judgment and decree after framing points for determination in the appeal in accordance with the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. And providing opportunity to parties to advance their arguments. This case has already exhausted lots of time; therefore, the parties are directed through their counsel to appear before the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Mirpur Mathelo, on 1-10-2013, who shall expedite the appeal and dispose it of within two months from 1-10-2013. Civil Revision stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
11. Office is directed to forward the copy of this judgment to the Court of learned IVth Additional District Judge, Mirpur Mathelo, District Ghotki. The compliance report of the judgment may be intimated to this court through Additional Registrar of the Court.