RAJA SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.---The revision petition filed on behalf of Ghulam Mehdi petitioner , impugns the judgment and decree of learned District Judge Ghanche dated 18/11/15 by virtue of which Civil Appeal No. of 2015 directed against the Judgment/decree of Civil Judge Khapulu dated 24/09/2014 passed in Civil Suit No. was dismissed and as result thereof the judgement/decree of the Civil Judge is maintained.
2. Brief facts leading to this controversy is that the petitioner/plaintif f filed a suit for declaration and permanent Injunction against the respondent/defend ant in the trial court claiming that the petitioner/plaintif f by means of partition of property deed dated 18/11/2207 and agreement dated 25/03/2008 is entitled to get the disputed residential house situated at Gharis Khapulu or alternate land fully described in the head of the plaint from the respondent/defendant. The plaintif f has further prayed that the respondent/ defendant may permanently be restrained form alienation suit property till disposal of suit.
3. The suit was contested by the respondent / defendant by filing his written statement in the trial court wherein he has raised certain legal objections inter alia, the suit is not maintainable in the present form suit is hopelessly time bared etc. On facts the averments made in the plaint were also denied by the respondent/ defendant in his written statement.
4. The learned trial court framed the following issued on the controversy involved between the parties.
I. Whether , in the light of partition deed dated 18/11/2007 and subsequent acknowledgement deed dated 25/03/2008, plaintiff is entitled to the residential house situated at Gharis or otherwise in lieu of said house is entitled to the properties namely , Goma Gar, Ghoti Jing, Neuti Ouq and Skim Khuil with trees over the said properties? OPP II. Whether , according to the document s partition deed dated 18/11/2007 and acknowledgement deed dated 25/03/2008 in lieu of the residential house properties namely Goma Gahr Ghoti Jing, Neuti Ouq, Skim Kheul and additional properties namely Calder Pi Jungfu with trees, Sipi Jinggo with trees popular apricot and two big popular trees chafing and one biggest poplar tree namely Shub Korkor were given to the defendant? OPP III. Whether in the subsequent division of properties dated 13/07/2008 the land under the residential house measuring seven marlas was given to the defendant and in lieu of the seven marla land defendant gave seven marlas land to the plaintiff that is Goma Ghar Facho Adadi Zhrbo and Golong? OPD IV. Whether the over writing in the document Exh. D/5 Exh. D/8 and Exh.D/9 are made by the arbitrators? OPD V. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within time? OPP VI. Whether the suit house had to be handed over to the plaintiff by the defendants under the partition within one year? OPP VII. Whether the Suit in the present form in not maintainable? OPD VIII. Whether the suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 1 1? OPD IX. Whether the suit is hit by the principle of stopple? OPD X. Relief.
5. The parties produced evidence to support their respective contentions. Upon consideration of the evidence, learned Civil Judge Khapulu seized of the matter , disbelieved the evidence led by the plaintif f and proceeded to hold the plaintif f has failed to prove hiss case in respect of the suit property and he is not entitled for the decree as prayed for consequently the suit of the plaintif f petitioner was dismissed vide Judgement and decree dated 24/09/2014. An appeal was preferred there against before the learned district Jude Ghanche which got the same fate and the learned district judge Ghanche, dismissed the appeal of the appellant/plaintif f vide judgement dated 18/11/2015, which has led to the filing of instant revision.
6. Arguing on behalf of the petitioner/plaintif f Mr. Khadim Hussain-Advocate contended with force that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned appellate court as well as the learned Civil Court is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and judgment passed by the leaned judge of the 1st appellate Court/ District Judge is passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicious mind and that the impugned judgment under revision is violative of the mandatory provision of Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. Referring towards the provision the learned counsel conten ds that the dictate of Order XLI, Rule 31 is mandatory in nature and the Learned District Judge Ghanche was bound to compliance the dictate of the said provision, the judgment should be based on issue wise findings or it should be based on the settled point of determinations the learned. Appellate Court not even bother to frame point of determinations in the case or even his judgment on the matter should be based on the issue wise findings. The learned counsel prayed that on the basis of the above irregularity and illegality the judgement of the Appellate Court stands no where hence matter may be remitted back to the 1st Appellate Court for decision afresh in order to meet the ends of justice. To argument the contention he placed reliance on (PLD 2001 Lah.9) ( 2001 YLR 764 ) and (2004 CLC 950 ).
7. The learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary supported the impugned judgement/decrees of both the lower courts and maintained that good reasons have been shown in the findings of the impugned judgments and that no case for interference has been made out in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
8. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case file. So for as the objection regarding non-compliance to the provision of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, it is appropriate to reproduce the relevant order here;- ORDER XLI, RULE 31, C.P.C. Contents, date and signature of Judgment, the judgment of Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state --- a) The points of determination; b) The decision thereon; c) The reasons for the decision; d) Where the decree appeal from is reversed or varied, the relief which the appellant is entitled And shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein."
Bare reading of the provision stated above clarifies that judgment decree of the Appellate Court would state the points of determination, decision thereon and reasons for decision. This rule is mandatory in nature and should be followed by the Appellate Court to decide the to decide the matter in accordance with law .
9. It needs no reiteration that the statutory right of appeal confers a right of rehearing the whole dispute unless expressly restricted and the appellate court has to consider the controversy entirely afresh both as regard to facts and law. An appellate Judgment should state the points arising from the determination. The term "points for determination" refers to all important questions involved in the case. It is necessary for the appellate court to record the points for determination so that it can be determined whether the Court has dealt with all the points. The appellate court is required to give its decision with regard to each point, which should be self-explanatory , illuminative and in the nature of speaking order . Where the provision of Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. are not complied with, the judgment is not accordance with law. It should be evident form the judgme nt that the judge was conscious of the matter involved and that decision has been pronounced on the basis of the record, where a judgment does not substantially comply with the require ment of this rule is bad judgment in the eye of law. The perusal of the judgment of the learned appellate court show that the appeal was dealt with in very cursory manner . Neither issues wise findings were given by the learned appellate court nor points for determination as envisage under the Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. were set out and decision given thereon. The Appellate Court was duty bound to consider and discuss the evidence of the both the parties satisfactorily so that it may be visible that the court below have applied the judicious mind, but in case in hand it was not done by the Appellate Court that reveal that it frustrated the very purpose of the provision of Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. and has been in mechanical manner without discussing the material on record.
10. For the reasons recorded above, I find that the impugned judgment of the learned district judge is violative of the provision of Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. and cannot be allowed to remain intact. Resultantly the revision petition is accepted, the judgment of the learned District Judge Khapulu dated 18.11.2015 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned District Judge Khapulu for rewriting the judgment in accordance with law after hearing the parties once again. File.