' ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.---This civil revision under section 115 C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17-8-2011 and 22-8-2011 respectively, passed by the Court of learned III-Additional District Judge, Khairpur whereby, dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2009, maintained the judgment and decree dated 30-10-2008 and 4-11-2008 respectively, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge Mirwah, in Civil Suit No.52 of 2000.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land, admeasuring 68-08 acres, to the extent of 0-87 paisa share, situated in Deh George Ali Murad, Taluka Mirwah, District Khairpur with the following prayers:--
(i) That this honourable Court may be pleased to declare that the disputed land survey numbers 415/2-36, 420/4-09 and 282/2-36 situated in Deh George Ali Murad, Taluka Mirwah is not partitioned and the defendant is in illegal possession and enjoyment over the 0-87 paisa share of the plaintiffs.
(ii) That the plaintiffs be put in joint possession of disputed land survey numbers 415/2-36, 282/4-01 and 420/4-09 of Deh George Ali Murad, Taluka Mirwah to the extent of 0-87 paisa share.
(iii) Mesne profits be awarded till the possession is handed over.
(iv) To, issue permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating further charge or encumbrance upon the suit land through fraudulent alienation in any manner or interfering in any manner with the rights, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land to the extent of 0-87 paisa share.
(v) To award costs of the suit.
(vi) Any other relief, this honourable Court deems fit and proper."
3. The defendants Nos.1 and 2 filed their separate written statements. From the pleading of the parties following issues were settled by the learned trial Court:--
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable according to law?
(ii) Whether defendant No.2 had not sold out the suit land to defendant No.1, if so, its effects?
(iii) Whether in private partition S. Nos. 415, 264 and 282 of Deh George Ali Murad, were given to defendant No.1, exclusively, if so, its effect?
(iv) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of 87 paisa share from S. No. 415, 264 and 282?
(v) Whether defendant No.1 is lawful owner of suit land and his possession is legal?
(vi) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to any relief, if so, to what extant?
(vii) What should the decree be?
4. At the trial P.W-1 Shamsuddin (Tapedar) examined as P.W-1 at Exh.58, who produced entries and revenue record at Exh.58/A to 58/F. P.W-2 Syed Ali Nawaz Shah (plaintiff No.1) examined at Exh.81 and P.W-3 Peroze examined at Exh.82. Thereafter, the plaintiffs' side for evidence was closed vide statement at Exh.83.
5. The defendants failed to adduce evidence, therefore, the defendants' side for evidence was closed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20-9-2008 and, without giving any findings on issues, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of respondents vide judgment and decree dated 30- 10-2008 and 4-11-2008 respectively. The defendant No.1 preferred Civil Appeal No.16 of 2009 before the District Judge, Khairpur, which was heard and dismissed by the learned Court of III-Additional District Judge, Khairpur. Hence, this civil revision.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. At very outset, the learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court to the operative part of judgment passed by the learned trial Court and contended that the learned trial Court did not decide the controversy between the parties in accordance with law as the learned trial Court failed to observe mandatory requirement of Order XX, Rule 4(2), C.P.C. And decreed the suit of respondents without giving any finding on any issues framed by the learned trial Court.
Likewise the learned appellate Court without framing any point for determination, as required under Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. Dismissed the civil appeal of applicant. He has further contended that impugned judgments passed by the leaned Courts below are tangibly unjust and based on material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction; therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees are not sustainable in eyes of law. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the applicant has relied on the cases of Haji Abdul Jalil v. Anjuman Jama Masjid Haquani (1996 M LD 818), Masood-ul-Hasan Khan v. Iftikhar All and 3 others (2011 M LD 1792), Iftikhar-ud-Din Haider Gardezi and 9 others v. Central Bank of India and 2 others (1996 SCM R 669) and Allahyar and others v. Jiand and others (2010 CLC 1931).
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, supporting the impugned judgments, has contended that the version of respondents/plaintiffs had gone unchallenged in trial as the defendants failed to cross examine the P.Ws. And they also did not lead evidence to disprove the claim of plaintiffs; therefore, the learned trial Court rightly decreed the suit of respondents.
9. The operative part of the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court reads as under:- - "Heard arguments; the evidence of plaintiffs has gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. The plaintiffs and their witness have supported the version of plaintiffs in their evidence as per content of plaint.
While the defendants have failed to adduce their evidence or prove their claim through cross- examine the P.Ws. Or their evidence, but they preferred to remain absent without intimation, while the plaintiffs have successfully proved their version through evidence.
' Therefore, in view of above circumstances and reasons there is no other alternate except to decree the suit of plaintiffs, therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed as prayed with no order as to costs."
10. While the operative part of the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate Court delivers as under:-- "Since the appellant/defendant has not produced any evidence therefore, decision on issues and reasons are not needed and the evidence brought by the respondents/plaintiffs is deemed to be true. Therefore, in view of above circumstances, the judgment and decree of trial Court dated 30- 10-2008 and 4-11-2008 respectively, is maintained. With the result that appeal in hand stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Let such decree be prepared accordingly."
11. From perusal of the impugned judgments of learned Courts below, it appears that the learned trial Court has not given its finding on issues at all and failed to scan, analyze, evaluate and record in its judgment the evidence adduced by the respondents / plaintiffs. While the learned appellate Court, without framing points for determination dismissed the applicant's appeal in slipshod manner just in a few lines, observing that the appellant/defendant has not produced any evidence therefore, decision on issues and reasons, were not needed. Thus, violating the mandatory provisions of law, both the Courts below have committed material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction.
12. The expression "judgment" is defined in subsection (9) of section 2 of C.P.C. As "statement given by the judge of the grounds of a decree or order". This can be elaborated as "judicial decision of a Court or Judge". Order XX, Rule 4(2) of C.P.C. Provides that the judgments of the Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. Further, Order XX, Rule 5 of C.P.C. Speaks that in suits in which issues have been framed; the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit.
' The judgment, therefore, should contain (i) a concise statement of the case, (ii) point for determination i.e. The issues, (iii) the decision or finding of the court issue-wise, if the issues are not inter-linked, and (iv) the reasons for the decision. The judgment should not only state the finding of the court but also the evidence and how it supports the findings. It is incumbent upon the court where issues have been framed and evidence recorded, the court should give a reasoned judgment even though it may be an ex parte judgment. The court shall act with material irregularity and illegality if it gives no reasons for its decision with regard to issue/ point for determination. No provision of law authorizes A the court to decree a suit without scanning, analyzing, evaluating and recording in its judgment the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the party (s). Therefore the suit of a plaintiff cannot be decreed merely assigning the reason that the defendant did not cross-examine the plaintiff or his witnesses or he did not adduce evidence. Under Article 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 the onus to prove a fact lies on the shoulders of the person who raised the same and not on the opposite party. It is therefore, settled principle of law that the party approaching court for grant of relief shall have to discharge his own burden and stand on his own legs to succeed and the party so approaching the court cannot avail benefit of weakness in case of opposite party.
13. The provisions of Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C., apply to the judgment of a trial Court only. So far the judgment of appellate Court is concerned; it is governed by Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C., which provides that judgment of an appellate Court shall state (i) the points for determination, (ii) the decision thereon, and (iii) the reasons for the decision. In the case of Allahyar and others (supra) Mr. Justice Muhammad' Ather Saeed, in the capacity of a Judge of High Court of Sindh, as his lordship then was (now his lordship graces the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan) referring the cases of likharud-Din Haider Gardezi and 9 others v. Central Bank of India and 2 others (1996 SCM R 669), Juma Khan v. Shamim (1992 CLC 1022) and Muhammad Tufail v. Fauji Fertilizer Co. Ltd. (2000 CLC 1838) held that the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. Are mandatory in nature and the Appellate Court cannot dispose of an Appeal without following the provisions of the above mentioned statute and framing points for determination.
14. It is persistently being observed by the superior Courts that it has become practice of the subordinate Courts to avoid giving findings on all the issues before it. Such practice is to be deprecated as it causes under due delay. It is duty of the subordinate Courts to give findings on each and every issue before it separately, if the issues are not inter linked, so that at the appellate or revisional stages all the issues can be agitated so as to avoid the remand of the cases for recording findings on the issue, finding of which had not been given.
15. For what has been discussed above, it is obvious that the judgments of the lower Courts below are unjust and cannot be called decision upon the rights of the parties in the manners provided by law, as such, are based on material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned Courts below; therefore, the same are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court with the direction to pass a de novo judgment and decree by stating finding, with the reasons upon issues framed by the learned trial Court in the civil suit, in accordance with Order XX, Rules 4(2) and 5 of C.P.C., and after giving both the parties opportunity to advance their arguments, pass the fresh judgment and decree within one months positively from the date of the receipt of this Judgment.
With these observations, this revision application is allowed with no order as to costs.