By filing this writ petition in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution) the petitioner has assailed the legality and propriety of the judgme nt and decree dated 31.3.2017 passed by learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Khanewal whereby while modifying the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 28.7.2016 the appeal of Mst. Shahida Shafiq, respondent No.1 (the respondent) for recovery of dowry articles was allowed in the following terms: "In the given circumstances, the appeal filed by Mst. Tahira Shafiq is partly accepted, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the value of the dowry articles as mentioned in the judgment is set aside which is fixed as per list where value of each articles is mentioned. In this way, total value of the articles is fixed Rs.23,07,500/- (twenty three lac seven thousand and five hundred) and plaintiff shall be entitled to recover these articles or their value. It is clear that these articles were given to the plaintiff more than a decade back so, all these articles are subject to deprecation and devaluation, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of articles, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover amount of these articles with 30 percent depreciation."
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition and necessary for its adjudic ation are that parties to the lis solemnized Nikah/marriage on 03.01.2004 which ended on 30.11.2017 by pronouncement of talaq by the petitioner . In this background the respond ent filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles with the assertion that at the time of her marriage she was given dowry articles as per list (Ex.P .3) valuing Rs.1,15,45,500/- which were lying with the present pertitioner . Whereas the petitioner contested the suit with the contention that only few nominal/useable items i.e. clothes and shoes etc. were given at the time of respondent' s marriage. After framing issues and recording evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 28.7.2016 for Rs.2,00,000/- while concluding as under: "Whereas the claim of plaintiff for recovery of gold ornaments is dismissed and recovery of dowry articles is partially decreed and it is declared that she is held entitled to recover dowry article s from the defendant according to the list Ex. P .3 mentioned on serial No. 1 to 6 or its alternate value Rs.2,00,000/- ."
Both the parties, feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of learned Judge Family Court, Khanewal filed appeals under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 before learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Khanewal who vide impugned judgment dated 31.3.2017 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner whereas that of the respondent was partially allowed in the terms noticed in para No. 1 supra. As such by filing the instant petition the petitioner has assailed propriety and judgment pass ed by learned Courts below mainly on the basis of against facts and law, based on mis-reading and non-reading of evidence.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Before discussing merits of the case, it may be noted that main object of an appeal is to review the whole case, and to secure a just judgment upon the merits. It is an act by which the party subm its to the decision of a superior court, a cause which has been tried in an inferior tribunal or court. It generallty annuls the judgment of the inferior court, so far that no action can be taken upon it until after the final decision of the cause. An appeal differs from proceedings in error, under which the errors committed in the proceedings are examined, and if any have been committed the first judgment is reversed; because in the appeal the whole case is examined and tried as it had not been tried before trial court. An appeal is continuation of the suit and appellate Court is under legal obligation to render its findings, after determination of the important points involved in the suit on each and every issue. Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 provides remedy of appeal before the Distt. Court to an aggrieved person. It is thus a substantive right and is considered to be continuation of proceedings which come entirely upon the first appellate Court carrying with it the right of rehearing law and facts as well as reviewing pleadings and evidence afresh. The District Court, being only Court of appeal under the Act, is, therefore, required to dispose of appeal after taking into consideration entire mate rial on record and is thus duty bound to deal with all issues as first appeal was a valuable right in which both questions of law and facts are to be considered. Steering thoughts are gathered from cases Umar Din v. Ghazanfer Ali and others (1991 SCMR 1816 ), Gul Rehman v. Gul Nawaz Khan (2009 SCMR 589), Bashir Ahmed v. Mst. Taja Begum and others (PLD 2010 SC 906), Muhammad Shabir Shah vs. Mst.
Dilshad Fatima and others {1991 CLC 786 (Lahore)} and Mahmood ul Hassan v. Additional District Judge and others (2019 CLC 71 ). The legal principle set down in these pronouncements may be summirsed as under: 1) It is obligatory to appellate court to discuss each issue separately so far as necessary and give its finding on all points raised before it.
2) The appellate court has got ample power to thrash out entire evidence and scrutinize available documents in the light of arguments advanced by the respective parties.
3) It is obligatory to appellate court to thrash out available record and evidence independently and the appellate court should not depend on the decision of trial court.
4) The appellate court can take a second look at all legal and factual aspects of the case.
5) Appellate court is required to reappraise the evidence and reach thereby to its own conclusion, which might be different from one arrived at by trial court.
6) The first appellate court is duty bound to deal with all issues as the first appeal is a valuable right in which both questions of law and fact are to be considered.
7) It is essential that the Judge should accord fair and proper hearing to a person sought to be affected by his order and give sufficient, clear and explicit reasons in support of order made by him.
8) In Family Appeals the District Court under the Family Court Act, 1964 being only court of appeal is required under the law to dispose of the appeal after taking into consideration the entire material on the record.
9) It is equally well settled that if the appellate court proceeds to reverse the decree of trial court, it is incumbent upon it to not only take into consideration entire evidence but also to take notice of the reason which had prevailed with the lower court for taking a contrary view .
10) Appeal under section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 is a substantive right and is continuation of proceedings which comes entirely upon the first appellate court caring with the right of rehearin g law and facts as well as reviewing pleadings and evidence afresh.
In the light of above criteria for fairly deciding an appeal, I have examined the available record. From perusal of the judgment delivered by learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Khanewal it is evident that the appellate Court has not made any venture to take note of evidence which was produced by the parties in support of their respective claims. Similarly the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties was not appreciated and in qauite casual and slip shod manner , on the basis of the impugned judgment delivered by learned Judge Family Court believing it to be sacrocent testimonial the price of the decreed dowry articles was calculated and appeal of the respondent was allowed with observation that calculation of alternate price of dowry articles fixed by learned trial Court was not correct and accurate. The impugned judgment of first appellate court was made without recording any reasons in support thereof and no ascertainment of facts upon appreciation of evidence was made. The appellate Court has not noticed that list of dowry articles (Ex.P.3) with prices mentioned against each article was not prepared at the time of marriage but at the time of filing of suit and as such there was no data from which first appellate Court observed the accuracy of prices mentioned in the said list. The prices of dowry articles, of course, after a lapse of long period of matrimonial life, were fixed on the basis of just estimate/guess work. As noticed supra the Court has not referred, dicussed, or scanned evidence of the parties or assigned any reason for beliving version of the respondent and discarding version of the petitioner by applying its judicial mind to the evidence produced and has instead mechanically upheld the finding of the trial Court in this regard. Thus to my view the impugned judgment cannot be regarded as proper and an honest discharge of the duty of the first appellate Court which suffers from misreading and non-reading of evidence and as such not sustainable.
5. For what has been discussed above, having no other option, this writ petition is allowed, impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Khanewal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first appellat Court with direction to treat the appeals of both the parties pending before him and decide the same afresh by passing well reasoned judgment based on proper appraisal of evidence after affording right of audience to the parties, at the earliest preferably within two months from the next date of hearing fixed by it.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Distt. Judge, Khanewal on 30.6.2019 who may decide the appeals himself or entrust the same to some other court of competent jurisdiction for decision.