This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondent, Irshad-ul-Haq, against Rehmat Ali and Muhammad Ali, who were brothers. Rehmat Ali has since died and petitioners Nos.l to 6 are his legal representatives. The suit was decreed by a Civil Judge. The petitioners filed appeal before an Additional District Judge but in vain. They have, therefore, come up in revision to this Court.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Additional District Judge had decided the appeal, without hearing the petitioners and, therefore, the appeal deserved to be decided afresh.
3. On the other hand, it was urged by learned counsel for the respondent that the learned Additional District Judge heard arguments of both sides before deciding the appeal and that this fact was borne out by the judgment under revision.
4. It is true that in the judgment under challenge it was noted by the learned Additional District Judge that he heard arguments of the parties but the order sheet speaks otherwise. The petitioner had made an application before the learned Additional District Judge for permission to produce additional evidence. Learned Additional District Judge had fixed the appeal for 14th March, 1981 for arguments but on the said date he heard arguments on the above application and adjourned the case to 16th March, 1981 for order. Learned Additional District Judge could not write order on the application by 16th March, 1981 and, therefore, adjourned the case to 24th March, 1981 for announcement of order on the application. On 24th March, 1981, however, he dismissed the appeal by means of a judgment recorded in English leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. I have carefully gone through the appellate record. It does not contain any order on the application for additional evidence. In the judgment under revision also there is no mention of the said application. Before deciding the appeal the learned Additional District Judge should have decided the application but he had omitted to do so. Also, he decided the appeal on a date which was not fixed for its hearing. The order-sheet does not show that the appeal was disposed of after hearing arguments thereon. All this supports the petitioners, plea that the appeal was decided without hearing the parties. Seemingly, it was in routine that the learned Additional District Judge had noted in the judgment under revision that he has heard arguments of the parties.
6. In view of what has gone above, I hold that the appeal was not properly decided. Judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge are, therefore, set aside and the appeal is remanded to him for fresh decision in the light of above observations and in accordance with law.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.
7. Record shall be returned to the learned Additional District Judge immediately. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 16th November, 1985. The learned Additional District Judge shall decide the appeal within one month of the receipt of this order.