KHADIM HUSSAIN TUNIO, J. The applicant Ali Muhammad has filed the application under section 151, C.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated 07.11.2018, passed by learned Additional District, Judge III, Dadu in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2016 and impugned judgment dated 26.03.2016 along with decree dated 31.03.2016 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge Dadu in F .C. Suit No. 02 of 2012.
2. Briefly, facts of the present revision application are that a dispute was on-going between the present applicants and private respondents over the construction of a marriage hall surrounded by residential area.
After a sit-in between the parties, regulations were agreed upon between the parties over how the marriage hall would be run and the dispute was resolved. However, the applicants began the construction of second floor of the marriage hall which was objected upon by the private respondents. As a result, the private respondents filed a F.C. Suit No. 02 of 2012.
3. Allegedly , F.C. Suit No. 02 of 2012 was filed by the private respondents for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants Nos. 3 to 7. After considering the objections of the parties, learned lower Court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the suit is not Maintainable in its present form? ii. Whether the plaintiffs have got cause of action in their favour? iii. Whether defendants 3 to 7 are running Agha Gee Marriage Hall as commercial entity in residential locality? iv. Whether proper legal approval was given by competent authorities in favour of defendants 3 to 7 after adopting codal formalities? v. Whether arranging marriage functions and other ceremonies are affecting the privacy of neighbourhood. If so, how and in what manners? vi. Whether approved plan of defendants 3 to 7 was cancelled by concerned authorities. If so, what is the effect? vii. Whether easementry rights of plaintiffs are affected. If so, in what manners and to what extent? viii. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the grant of reliefs in their favour , as prayed? ix. What should the decree be?
Ultimately, vide judgment dated 26.03.2016 and decree dated 31.03.2016, the suit of plaintif fs (private respondents) was decreed as prayed.
4. Being aggrieved, the present applicant s filed Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2016 and challenged the said judgment and decree passed by Senior Civil Judge Dadu in F.C. Suit No. 02 of 2012. The Appe llate Court framed the following issues: i. Whether impugned judgment dated 26.03.2016 and decree dated 31.3.2016 passed by learned trial court in F. C.
Suit No. 2/2012 Re-Haji All Gohar and others v . Province of Sindh and others require interference by this Court? ii. What should the judgment be?
Consequently , the Appellate Court upheld the impugned judgment and decree of the lower Court, vide impugned judgment dated 07.1 1.2018.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the impugned judgment and decree and unjust, improper and arbitrary and passed by the Appellate Court without considering the application filed by applicant under 0. XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C; that the learned Appellate Court has not considered all the material facts and circumstances; that the learned trial Court has failed to apply its judicious mind while passing the judgment and decree that is against the spirit of law laid down in the code of civil procedure; that the learned trial Court has decided the suit erroneously without appreciating the facts and without appreciating the evidence; that the learned appellate Court has failed to exercise the powers conferred to it under 0. XLI, Rule 27, C.P .C.
6. On the contra, learned counsel for private respondents has argued that there is no mis-reading or non-reading of evidence; that the trial Court has passed the judgment and decree in the four corners of law; that all the relevant documents are already available on record; that the applicants have failed to point, out and illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. Learned State counsel supported the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below . He has relied on the case law reported as 2018 SCMR 76, 2018 SCMR 1616 , Civil Petition No. 815- K of 2016 and Cr . Petition No. 19-K of 2017.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for applicants, counsel for respondents and the contentions of learned state counsel and have perused the record available before me.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. stretches a mechanism for disposal of civil appeal that judgment of the appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state: (i) the points for determination to resolve the actual controversy going on between the parties, (ii) the decision on each and every issue settled from the pleadings of the parties, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the appeal (iii) the reasons in detail by discussing the evidence adduced by the parties and documents produced by them to substantiate their claims, for the decision, (iv) and where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. Judgment pronounced should discuss and cover all substantial points involved in the case and also should reflect that Court has scanned and examined the material available on record minutely as well as evidence adduced by the parties supported with relevant documents pragmatically. Compliance of Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. is mandatory in its nature and Appellate Court could not evade these provisions by taking divergent view on erroneous surmises and conjectural presumptions.
8(sic). Coming to the legal point involved in the present revision, the Appellate Court had failed to give reasons upon each and every issue recorded by the trial Court. The Appellate Court also failed to decide the controversy in the purview of the evidence adduced by both the parties supported with their respective documents and even no sound, sufficient and cogent reasons have been furnished by learned Appellate Court while dismissing the matter. Consequently, in the matter in hand, learned Appellate Court has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C., while deciding the matter merely holding that the trial Court had considered all the important points that needed consideration. The Appellate Court also failed to frame proper points for determination, nor gave findings on such points, despite the fact that the trial Court framed in all 9 issues, all of which, accrued in favour of the petitioners. Such a practise of the Appellate Court, if allowed, would frustrate the whole scheme of legislature while putting such mandatory provisions of law in the Court. Therefore, the Appellate Court has ignored the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 C.P.C, in its letter and spirit.
9. Now adverting to the application filed by the applicant under Order XLI, R. 27, it is observed that if the Appellate Court deems necessary, only after considering the relevance of the documents with the matter in hand, their importance and outcome if they are not produced, can allow the parties to produce/adduce additional evidence in terms of O. XLI, R. 27 of C.P.C. in order to resolve the matter and controversy between the parties and for effectual adjudication of the matter.
10. For what has been discussed above, the Civil Revision Application No. 253 of 2018 is disposed of and the case is remanded to the First Appellate Court. Parties are directed to appear before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Dadu on 1st August, 2019 without claiming further notice.