' The facts giving rise to this suit are that the petitioner, Shamas-ud-Din, owns a house adjoining the premises belonging to the respondent. Ali Jan. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from doing certain acts to the detriment of the premises vesting in the respondent. The suit was resisted by the petitioner whereupon necessary issues were framed. The respondent examined three witnesses and also placed on record some documents in support of his suit. In rebuttal, the petitioner produced three witnesses together with one document.
The Civil Judge, who was seized of the suit, decided all the issues in favour of the respondent and decreed the suit. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by an Additional District Judge. He has, therefore, come up in revision to this Court.
3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the _learned Additional District Judge had disposed of the appeal in a perfunctory manner and by means of a sketchy judgment inasmuch as he did not take notice of the evidence produced by the petitioner nor it was properly discussed by him. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is no judgment in the eye of law and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be decided afresh.
4. A perusal of the short judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge would reveal that he referred to three documents and one witness produced by the respondent in support of his case and thereafter brushed aside the petitioner's evidence in the following words :- "There is not an iota of evidence to rebut the same. The oral evidence adduced by the appellant in this context is too meagre to be relied upon."
' As indicated above, the petitioner had examined three witnesses in rebuttal and had also placed reliance on one document which was received in evidence as Exh. D-1. How could, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge say that there was not an iota of evidence to rebut the evidence of the respondent ? If the evidence led by the petitioner was not reliable or w otherwise of no help to him, the learned Additional District Judge should have given reasons for taking such a view. He had, however, failed to do so. His remark that the oral evidence of the petitioner was too meagre is, to say the least, vague. The law does not prescribe the quantum of evidence which is required to be furnished by a party to prove or disprove a fact. It is for the parties to produce such amount of evidence and of such quality as they may like to adduce and it is for the Courts to believe or disbelieve their evidence by giving reasons therefor. Sometimes, a party wins hi case on the score of the depositions of a small number of witnesses who are considered to be trustworthy and it is not infrequently that a party lose his case even by examining large number of witnesses who are found to unreliable. The manner in which the learned Additional District Judge has dealt with the evidence of the petitioner indicates that he did not apply hi mind to that evidence. Thus, the appeal was not properly disposed of by, him.
5. Accordingly, I accept this civil revision, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge and remand the appeal to him with the direction that it shall be decided afresh in the light of the above observations and in accordance 'with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. The appeal was previously decided by Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Sheikh, Additional District Judge, Gujranwala. He has since been transferred from Gujranwala. The appeal shall, therefore, be re- heard and decided afresh by his successor ; and if he has no successor, by the District Judge, Gujranwala, himself.
Revision .