' This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha dated 25-10-1980. One of the issues was whether the petitioner was a tenant of the land in dispute. It was found against him by the learned trial Court. On his appeal the learned Additional District Judge observed that "the appellant's contention is that he had superior right of pre- emption being a tenant over the disputed land. The evidence produced by the appellant/defendant No. 1 was rightly disbelieved. The judgment is self-speaking. The learned Civil Judge, has given reasons in support of his findings. The findings of the learned Civil Judge, on issue No. 1 require no interference and the same is hereby affirmed."
2. The learned first appellate Court has not referred to the evidence at all much less judged it. It is the duty of the first appellate Court to re-assess the evidence of the parties, examine the findings recorded by the trial Court and to give reasons for upholding or reversing the same. The method to write a judgment is given in the basic book dealing with civil litigation (C.P.C.
0. XLI, r. 31). The quotation from the judgement of the lower appellate Court would show that it has not examined the evidence and has observed that it "was rightly disbelieved" by the learned trial Court. How it was rightly disbelieved, he does not mention. Then it observed that the "learned Civil Judge, has given reasons in support of his findings." What were the reasons given by the learned Civil Judge? He does not refer to much less he weighs them. The judgment shows perfunctory approach to the duty which involves adjudication of rights of people calling for more care B and understanding.
3. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained at all. It is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned District Judge, Sargodha for fresh decision in accordance with law. In the