This civil revision arises from the judgment and decree dated 28th October, 1981, of the learned Additional District Judge confirming the judgment and decree dated lit March, 1981, of the learned Civil Judge. Vehari, whereby the suit for declaration with permanent injunction as consequential relief filed by Ali Muhammad. Respondent herein against Muhammad Hayat petitioner and the Province of Punjab, etc. Titled as -:411 Muhammad v. Tae Province of Punjab etc." was decreed.
2. The facts leading up to this revision in brief are that Ali Muhammad respondent-plaintiff owned two parcels of land in Chak No. 168/E.B. He applied to the S. D. C. O. Sainchanwala, for the consolidation and supply of the water to these parcels. On 18th September, 1972, the S.D.C.O.
Allowed consolidation of water but depriv--ed Ali Muhammad of his right of 'Nigal.' Ali Muhammad challenged this order before the Divisional Canal Officer but his appeal was rejected on 23rd April, .1973. Ali Muhammad respondent brought a civil suit wherein the legality of these orders was challenged file, however, withdrew the suit on 27th September, 1975 and approached again the S.D.C.O. Challenging the lawful authority of the S.D.C.O. And that of the D.C.O. To re-open the matter of Warabandi settled in 1946 their orders dated 18th September, 1972 and 23rd April, 1973. On 28th June, 1976, the S.D.C.O. Accepted the application of Ali Muhammad and restored his right of Nigal.
Muhammad Hayat and others peti--tioners-defendants challenged this order before the D.C.O.
Who vide his order dated 30th August, 1976 set aside that order. Thereupon, Ali Muhammad respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 30th August, 1979, was void, illegal and ineffective. In their written statement the petitioners-defendants raised preliminary objections and denied the averments of the plaint. On pleadings the following issues were framed
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of. Action and Locus Standi to bring this suit ? O.P.D.
(2) Whether the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to try this suit O. P. D.
(3) Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action? O.P.D.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to bring this suit ? O.P.D.
(5) Whether the suit is mala fide ? O.P.D.
(6) Whether the order of D.C.O. Dated 30th August, 1976 relating to Outlet No. 59355 situated at Chak No. 168/E.B. Tehsil and District Vehari is wrong, unjust illegal, against facts, against instructions of Canal Department, inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside ? O.P.D.
(7) Relief.
The trial Court discussed only issue No. 6 and found the impugned order to be unsustainable in law and without jurisdiction. It is remark--able that he did not discuss issues Nos. 1 to 5 and decided all the five issues with the following observation :- "All these issues have no substantive force in view of findings given above under issue No. 6.
Therefore, they are decided against the defendants. So far as the question of estoppel is concerned. I have no hesitation to say that estoppel against the question of law was not at all tenable in law. Order accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved, Muhammad Hayat and others petitioners-defendants filed an appeal against that judgment and decree which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 28th October, 1981. Hence this revisio4 petition.
3. The only point urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the learned Courts below have not written pro--per judgments inasmuch as the learned trial Court, although has decided the issues Nos. 1 to 5 against the petitioners-defendants yet it failed to give reasons, therefore, upon each separate issue and that the learned Additional District Judge also did not attend to these issues in a legal and proper manner.
4. As against this the learned counsel for the respondents has seriously supported the impugned judgments and decrees. He submits that in view of the finding on issue No. 6, there was hardly any need to decide issues Nos. 1 to 5 separately.
5. After the hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgments with care. I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners for the following reasons :-
(i) that the trial Court had framed separate issues, i.e. Issues Nos. l ,t to 6 and has actually decided issues Nos. 1 to 5 against the petitioners-defendants but the learned trial Judge did not give any reasons therefore upon each separate issue. I am of the opinion that having chosen to decide issues No. 1 to 5, the learned trial Court was bound to give reasons therefor upon each separate issue.
Order XX, rule 5, C. P. C. Reads as follows :- "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 suffi--cient for the decision of the suit."
This reading of Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. Makes it very much clear that,1 in, the instant case, the learned trial Judge was bound to give reasons for his decision on each separate issue. The observation of the trial Court "that all these issues have no substantive force in view of findings given above under issue No. 6" is highly misconceived. I am of the' opinion that in spite of a favourable finding on issue No. 5, each issue,, i.e. Issues Nos. 1 to 5 had a substantive force in case each issue is decided against the plaintiff to non-suit the plaintiff-respondent.
(ii) The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge creates an impression that the learned Additional District Judge had only observed formality inasmuch as he has only touched the issues but has not fully applied his mind. It is well settled that the characteristic of a good judgment is that it must be self-evident and self-explanatory ; in other words, it must contain the reasons that justify the conclusions arrived at and these reasons should be such that a disinterested reader can find convincing or at least reasonable. The reasoning should not be left to the imagination of the reader for such an order is apt to be termed as arbitrary. I find that in the instant case the learned Courts below have left the reasons to the imagination of the reader.
6. For the foregoing reasons this revision petition is accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Senior Civil Judge for rewriting the judgment after hearing the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vehari, on 20th February, 1982, and the learner] Senior Civil Judge would decide the case within two months under intimation to the Additional Registrar of this Court. No order as to costs.