1. MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J. --- Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration against the respondent challenging the legality of letter No. GRS-04-M-14/13. dated 30.06.2004 whereby his dealership with the respondent was cancelled. The suit was hotly contested by the respondent through filing written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed necessary issues, recorded evidence of the parties and dismissed the suit of the petitioner vide impugned judgment dated 30.06.2010. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred appeal who vide impugned judgment dated 22.10.2010 dismissed the same with the following observations:-- <i>"Perusal of the record reveals that prior to cancellation of dealer-ship of the appellant, a warning letter was issued to the appellant that he had not applied the required safety measures on his petrol pump. Therefore, the appellant had violated the terms and conditions of the dealer-ship, but it was not responded by the appellant positively in due course of time. There is no report of any expert on file as to whether the appellant was complying with the terms and conditions of the dealer-ship and had provided all necessary security and safety measures of the petroleum products as fixed by the defendant/company. Therefore, no illegality/material irregularity was committed by the learned Trial Court as each and every aspect of the case was minutely attended to in its impugned judgment and decree. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point-out any other .illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court. Thus, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court is sustainable in the eyes of law." </i> Hence, this civil revision.
2. 2.Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. 3.The judgment of the learned Appellate Court is not reflective of legal acumen and judicial mind. It departs from the instructions and directions as contained in Order XLI.rule 31 of the CPC for writing judgments which, inter alia. calls upon the Court to state (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision. All these points are invariably missing in the impugned judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge. He while passing impugned judgment mainly relied upon the warning letter which according to him required the petitioner to adopt safety measures on his petrol pump but while going through the said warning letter which is available on record as Mark D-1 it is divulged that there is no mention about failure of safety measures by the petitioner rather this letter has been issued to point out low sales of petroleum products. Thus the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court is the result of mis-reading and non-reading of the evidence. Similarly, the learned Appellate Court was of the view that the petitioner has failed to bring on record any report of an expert from which it could be inferred that required safety and security measures have been applied but it remained oblivious of the fact that it is settled law that one who alleges a fact is required to prove the same. The learned Appellate Court passed the impugned judgment in superficial manner and without applying its judicial mind and application of correct law which cannot be allowed to hold field.
4. 4.For what has been discussed above, this civil revision is <u>allowed</u> and consequently impugned judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court dated 22.10.2010 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Appellate Court to decide it afresh after taking into consideration the above observations and following the instructions and directions as contained in Order XLI, Rule 31 of the CPC for writing judgments. Keeping in view the old nature of the lis the learned Appellate Court is required to decide the matter expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.