Through instant petition, petitioner has challenged vires of orders dated 20.05.2021 & 20.10.2021, passed by learned Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Kotmomin, respectively, whereby petitioner's application for cancellation of written statement as well as power of attorney was concurrently dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that neither conceding written statement was signed by petitioner nor was it given with free consent. He adds that material aspects of the matter have been overlooked while passing impugned orders, thus, same are unsustainable in the eye of law.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 defends the impugned orders.
4. Arguments heard. Available record perused.,'
5. The main contentions of petitioner are that he neither appointed any Advocate nor authorized any person to file conceding written statement on his behalf; that on 22.10.2020, petitioner was identified by learned counsel of plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 rather by counsel allegedly engaged by petitioner, which shows mala fide and ulterior motive of Respondent No. 1; that petitioner's signatures on the margins of order sheet of learned Trial Court are different as on orders dated 18.08.2020, 18.05.2021 and 20.05.2021; that even otherwise, admissions attributed to the petitioner/defendant in the written statement were not of the nature as to show that he was confessing the claim of Respondent No. 1/plaintiff; that Trial Court cannot pass judgment on the basis of such admissions within the purview of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, rather it is incumbent upon the Trial Court to frame issues and then decide the case in accordance with the procedure provided in Civil Procedure Code, 1908. He has placed reliance upon Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat Islamabad and 2 others v. Ally Brothers & Company (Pak) Ltd. through Managing Director/Chief Executive and another (2001 MLD 1615).
6. Perusal of the impugned revisional order shows that learned Revisional Court has neither noted the contentions of petitioner nor properly thrashed out while passing impugned order, thus, same, lacking valid lawful reasons, has been passed in violation of the provisions of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which binds down the Judge to assign reasoning and pass speaking order/judgment. Where the reasons are not forthcoming from the impugned order/judgment, the appellate/revisional authority/Higher Court is deprived of the valuable views of the subordinate forum. In these circumstances, impugned revisional order is amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed upon Province of Sindh throush 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. u. 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).
7. In view of the above, instant petition is allowed and impugned order dated 20.10.2021 is set aside.
The case is remitted to learned Revisional Court with direction to re- decide the same through a well-reasoned speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before learned Additional District Judge on 28.02.2022. Compliance report shall be furnished to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial).