2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned District Judge did not pass a speaking order and therefore, it was open to interference by this Court.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 6, Abdul Sattar Khan and others, who were defendants in the suit, submitted that since there was no merit in the revision petition made to him, the learned District Judge had rightly dismissed that petition.
4. The only reason given by the learned District Judge for dismissing the revision petition reads as follows "I see no substance in the revision petition."
He did not make a mention of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties nor the same were discussed by him before holding that there was no substance in the revision petition. It is also not stated in the impugned order that no submissions were made by learned counsel for the petitioners in support A of the revision petition. The sketchy and non-speaking order made by learned District Judge is, therefore, no order in the eye of law. It is, consequently, of no legal effect.
5. Resultantly, I accept this writ petition set aside the order under challenge and direct that the learned District Judge shall redecide the revision petition in the light of the above observations and according to law.
1982 CLC 123 [Karachi] Before K. A. Ghani, J NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN-Plaintiff versus F. S. NAEEMUDDIN and 3 OTHERS-Defendants Suit No. 640 of 1976, decided on 26th March, 1981.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- O. XVI, r. 21 read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss. 106 & 114(g)--Non-appearance of party in witness- box-Defendants alleging promissory note to be forged and fictitious but not appearing in witness- box -Plaintiff's oral and documentary evidence conclusively proving defen--dants' liability and genuineness of promissory note-Held, promissory note, not forged or fictitious document.
Mansoorul Arfin for Plaintiff.
Mirza A. Rashid for Defendants.
Date of hearing : 26th March, 1981. ''