1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment dated 26-11-1980 passed by a learned ,Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. Lahore in R. S. A. No. 898 /68.
2. The question involved before the Courts below was whether one Sada, who died on 21-11-1928 without leaving any issue, was a Sunni or a Shia. The trial Court (Civil judge, Chiniot by a detailed judgment passed on 15-4-1965 came to the conclusion that Sada was a Sunni and, therefore, on the promulgation of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1962, his widow was entitled to get 1/4th share and the collaterals the remaining 3/4th share. This judgment and decree was challenged by the collaterals by filing an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Lyallpur (Faisalabad) who dismissed the same by a short judgment dated 30-9-1966 in which the evidence led by the parties was not elaborately discussed but simply his conclusion was expressed as follows:- "I have carefully gone through the evidence produced by the parties and the judgment passed by the learned lower Court. The defendant-- appellants have not established by means of any cogent and trustworthy evidence that Sada deceased (Husband of the plaintiff-respondent) was a Shia at the time of his death and that the plaintiff-respondent had admitted the same fact before the Revenue Officer. In such circum-- stances. I hold that that learned lower Court has rightly held Oat Sada deceased was a Sunni that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to 1/4 share out of his inheritance as his widow and has rightly decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit."
3. The petitioners herein challenged this appellate judgment by filing a second appeal in the Lahore High Court (R. S. A. 898/68) contending that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judgeth was not a legal disposal of the appeal, as he has failed to comply with the provisions of Order XLI, rule 31, C. P. C. Inasmuch as he has failed to state the points for determination, the decision therein and the reasons for the decision.
4. The learned Judge in the High Court again reviewed the evidence and affirmed the judgments of the Courts below dealing with the objection to the effect that the provisions of Order XLI, rule 31, C. P.
5. C. Were not complied with. It was observed in para. 8 of the judgment, which is as follows :- "8. The relevant portion of Order XLI, rule 31, C. P. C. Is ' reproduced below .- "31. The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state-
(a) the points for determination ;
(b) the decision thereon ;
(c) the reasons for the, decisions ; and The only question which required determination. In this case was whether Sada was a Sunni or Shia. The requirements of sub-rules (a) and (b) are obviously complied with, because the judgment of the lower appellate Court mentions the point requiring determination, as well as the decision thereon. So far as the compliance of sub-rule (c) is concerned, it is true that the learned Additional District Judge has not mentioned and discussed the entire evidence in his judgment, but he has observed clearly that he had examined the evidence produced by the parties as also the judgment passed by the trial Court, and that his finding was that the appellants had failed to establish by means of any cogent and trustworthy evidence that Sada deceased was a Shia at the time of his death, and that they had also failed to prove the admission of the respondent allegedly made before the revenue ' officer that Sada was a Shia."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this petition for leave to appeal, directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court has submitted that the learned Judge in the High Court has erred in consider--ing that the provisions of Order XLI, rule 31, C. P. C. Stood complied with by the learned Additional District Judge, even though he had not adverted to the testimony of the witnesses, who had deposed at the trial and given reasons for preferring the evidence led by the petitioners over that produced by the defendants (petitioners herein).
7. We agree that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is not altogether satisfactory and it would have been more appropriate for him to have himself discussed the merits of the evidence respectively led by the parties. But as this Court has observed in Ch. Abdul Kabeer v. Mian Abdul Wahid and others (1968 SCMR 464) that "a non-compliance with the strict provision of rule 31 of Order XLI of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 may not vitiate the judgment and make it a nullity and the irregularity may be ignored if there has been substantial compliance with it . . . . . . . . . . . . .The question whether in a particular case there has been a substantial compliance with the provisions of rule 31, would depend on the nature of the judgment which is under appeal. For example, if the finding on a question of fact has been arrived at on proper and legal evidence, there could thus be no ground for interference under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, there would be no necessity for strict comp--liance with rule 31. But, when important points of law are involved in the case the appellate Court must indicate the points raised and the reasons , for its decision", the question involved in the instant case was purely aquestion of fact and we feel that although the learned Additional District Judge may have failed strictly .To comply with the provisions of Order XLI, rule 31, C. P. C. There has been a substantial compliance therewith. Hence the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge was not a nullity and affirming the finding of the trial Court that Sada was not a Shia being concurrent finding could not be interfered with in second appeal.
8. The result is that this petition must fail and is dismissed hereby.