' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.--- Through this single judgment, I propose to dispose of the instant Civil Revision No.415 of 2008 as well as the connected Civil Revision No.413 of 2008 as common question of law and facts is involved in both these petitions.
2. Brief facts of the instant revision petition are that Muhammad Usman and others, plaintiffs/respondents filed suit against Gul Zaman, petitioner/defendant for the recovery of monthly rent/khakshora and his eviction from a house measuring 2-kanal, 6-marla situated in khasra No.423, khata No.11 according to Fard Jamabandi for the year, 19911992 situated at Mauza Jhungara Tehsil and District, Mardan. A prayer for possession of the suit house has also been made as a consequential relief. The plaintiffs/respondents also filed another suit against one Aziz Khan, petitioner/defendant in the connected revision petition for the recovery of monthly rent/khakshora and his eviction from a house measuring 12-marla situated in Khasra No.403 Khala No.66/204 according to Fard Jamabandi for the year, 1991-92 situated at Mauza Jhungara Tehsil and District, Mardan. A prayer for possession of the house in dispute has also been made a consequential relief.
Both the suits were resisted by the petitioner/defendant of both the revision petitions by filing their written statements. The trial court after framing issues in both the cases, recording pro and contra evidence of the parties and hearing their learned counsel vide his separate judgment and decree dated 20-4-2006 passed the following relief in both the suits:--- ' Relief.
"The crux of my above discussion is that the plaintiff remained successful in proving his case through cogent and reliable evidence against the defendant to the extent of para baiy and jeem.
Thus, I hereby grant decree to the plaintiff to the extent of para jeem and baiy while the relief in para A (all]) is disallowed. No order as to cost. Case file be consigned to SRR after necessary completion."
3. Being aggrieved with the said judgments and decrees dated 20-4-2006, the petitioners/defendants in both the revision petitions preferred two appeals bearing Nos.30/12 and 31/12 of 2007 in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge V, Mardan who vide his separate impugned judgment and decree dated 9-2-2008 dismissed both the appeals. The petitioners/defendants being not satisfied with the said judgment and decree preferred the revision petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants contended with force that the impugned judgment of the learned appellate court is the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and the appeal was decided in a mechanical manner without application of judicious mind and that the impugned judgment is violative of the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. The learned counsel prayed that the matter may be remitted to the learned appellate court for issue-wise decision afresh in order to meet the ends of justice.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/ respondents on the contrary supported the impugned judgment and decree of the learned appellate court and maintained that good reasons 1,ave been shown for dismissing the appeal of the petitioner/defendant and that no case for interference has been made out in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case.
7. The only question argued before this court is that the learned appellate court has decided the appeal of the petitioner/defendant in a mechanical manner without application of judicious mind and thus, the same is violative of the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. The perusal of the judgment of the learned appellate court shows that the appeal was dealt with in a very cursory manner. Neither issue wise findings were given by the learned lower appellate court nor points for determination as envisaged under Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. Were set out and decision given thereon. The trial court and the appellate court are duty bound to consider and discuss the evidence of both the parties satisfactorily so that it may be visible that the courts below have applied their mind and that they have based their findings on proper appraisal of such evidence.
The courts are required under the law to give issue-wise findings in order to ensure that substantial justice has been done and no material prejudice has been caused to the parties. The impugned judgment of the learned lower appellate court clearly reveals that it frustrate the very purpose of the provision of Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. And has been recorded in a mechanical manner without discussing the material on record in detail.
8. For the reasons recorded above, I find that the learned appellate court neither bothered to give issue-wise findings nor set out the points for determination as required under Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. And thus, the same is violative of the provision of Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. And cannot be allowed to remain intact. Drawing wisdom from 2002 CLC 427, 1991 CLC 1499 and 1992 CLC 435, both these revision petitions are allowed, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge-V, Mardan dated 9-8-2008 is set aside and the case is remanded back to him for re-writing the judgment in accordance with law after hearing the learned counsel for the parties once again. Since it is an old case, therefore, the learned appellate court is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously and the office is directed to send the record to the court concerned immediately. There shall be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.