Through instant revision petition, petitioners have assailed judgments & decrees dated 22.05.2013 & 03.04.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Lahore, respectively, whereby respondent's suit for declaration along with permanent and mandatory injunction was concurrently decreed to the effect that petitioner-LDA has no concern with the suit property.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed suit for declaration along with permanent and mandatory injunction contending that he is owner-in-possession of suit property measuring 04- Kanal 16-Marla (fully described in the plaint) vide Document No. 8134, bahi No. 1, Jild No. 1818 dated 12.07.2008; that suit property does not come within the control of petitioner-LDA; and that petitioner-LDA illegally and unlawfully demolished the constructions over said property and caused heavy loss to respondent. During the course of proceedings, petitioners' right to file written statement was closed. Learned Trial Court, after recording evidence of respondent and hearing arguments, proceeded to decree the suit vide judgment & decree dated 22.05.2013 to the extent that petitioner-LDA has no concern with the suit property. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed appeal before learned Additional District Judge, which was dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 03.04.2018. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that impugned judgments & decrees are absolutely illegal and without any lawful justification. He adds that although petitioners' defence was struck off by learned Trial Court, but Trial Court was under legal obligation to pass speaking judgment after taking into account the admissions of PWs during the course of cross-examination, which aspect of the matter has been overlooked by learned lower Appellate Court while passing impugned judgment dated 03.04.2018, thus, same is absolutely non-speaking within the contemplation of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In the end, he submits that impugned appellate judgment & decree is liable to be set aside.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent defends the impugned decisions.
5. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
6. Perusal of record reveals that right to file written statement of defendant/LDA was closed in this case, therefore, learned Trial Court did not frame issues and after recording ex parte evidence suit was decided. I have gone through ex parte judgment and decree of learned trial Court, wherein learned Court although noted names of PWs and documentary evidence, however, did not bother to discuss the entire evidence, especially statement of PW-1, whose depositions/ admissions in cross-examination might be relevant to arrive at a just conclusion. The relevant portion of the statement of PW-1 is reproduced hereunder:-
7. Learned Trial Court proceeded to decide the suit by simply observing that evidence in rebuttal was not available on record from petitioners' side. It is settled principle of law that no judgment could be passed without discussing the evidence. Learned Appellate Court has also not thrashed out the available evidence and applied its judicial mind to the controversy involved in the lis.
Needless to say that a judgment must discuss and cover all substantial points involved in the case and should also reflect that the Court has scanned and examined the material available on record minutely as well as evidence adduced by the parties but such exercise was not undertaken by learned Courts below, hence, impugned judgments and decrees are unsustainable in the eye of law. Reference can be made to (Lt.-Col.Retd.) Ashfaq Ahmed v. Altaf Ahmed Gujjar and 6 others (2017 YLR Note 435) and Khalid Mehmood v. Naseem Akhtar and others (2019 MLD 820).
8. Learned Appellate Court has also not properly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it as whole case gets reopen in appeal and learned Appellate Court was obliged to give its own reasons by discussing the facts and the evidence on record for pronouncing a judgment and if the Court fails to give its own reasons, it would be deemed that the Court had acted with material irregularity and illegality and in that eventuality, the decision would not be sustainable in the eye of law. Reference can be made to Mst. Sabahat Idrees and another v. Mst. Clare Benedicta Conville and 4 others (2007 MLD 1732), Akhtar Hussain v. Muhammad Aslam (2007 YLR 2220) and Gul Zaman v.
Muhammad Usman and 7 others (2015 CLC 603).
9. It is now well-settled that non-speaking judgment/order is to be discouraged and Court/Judge is required to give reasons while passing judgments/orders. It must supply adequate reasons for the conclusion arrived at and should reflect application of judicious mind by the Judge, and not to be mechanical or non-speaking. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed upon Province of Sindh through Secretary Education, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 3 others v. Miss Saima Bano and others (2003 SCMR 1126), Muhammad Farooq Shah v. Shakirullah (2006 SCMR 1657), Abdul Majeed Zafar and others v. Governor of the Punjab through Chief Secretary and others (2007 SCMR 330), Umar Din through L.Rs. v. Mst. Shakeela Bibi and others (2009 SCMR 29), Secretary Ministry of Health, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another v. Dr. Rehana Hameed and others (2010 SCMR 511), Government of Pakistan through Director-General, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others v. Farheen Rashid (2011 SCMR 1) and Messrs MFMY Industries Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Commerce and others (2015 SCMR 1550.
10. In view of the above, instant revision petition is allowed in the matter that impugned appellate judgment & decree dated 03.04.2018 is set aside. Consequently, petitioners' appeal shall be deemed to be pending before learned Appellate Court to decide the same afresh, strictly in accordance with law, through a well-reasoned speaking judgment, after affording opportunity of hearing to learned counsel for the parties. The parties are directed to appear before learned Appellate Court on 04.10.2021, who shall decide the appeal within next thirty days under intimation to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial).