1. Relevant facts briefly stated arc, that on 2-5-1988 respondent filed a suit for recovery of half share from four date trees, described in the plaint. It was alleged that father of the petitioners had cultivated /planted said date trees on the land belonging to plaintiff/respondent, therefore, he was entitled to half share of the produce. Petitioners filed detailed written statement on 17-12-1988 repudiating the claim in suit. It was asserted that they were exclusive owners of the said date trees and no one ever claimed any share from the same. Trial Court on 4th of January, 1989 framed the following five issues:- Record reveals that plaintiff/respondent to substantiate his claim examined PW-1 Faqir Muhammad, PW-2, Muhammad Yousuf, PW-3 Abdul Wahid and PW-4 Naseer Ahmed, besides himself. Whereas in rebuttal petitioners adduced DW-1 Karim, DW-2 Mohammad Murad, DW-3 Dost Mohammad and petitioner Ghulam Mohammad. Learned Qazi, Turbat on appraisement of evidence decreed the suit vide judgment, dated 30th of November, 1989. It was declared that disputed four date trees were planted by petitioners on the land of plaintiff/respondent, therefore, they were liable to pay half-share of the produce to the plaintiff/respondent. Petitioners felt- aggrieved from aforesaid decree and judgment, thus on 7th of December, 1989 they preferred an Appeal No.139 before Majlis-e-Shoora, . Mckran Division at Turbat, which eventually was rejected on 25th of February; 1990. Present petition was filed on 25th of March, 1990 challenging judgments and decrees of both the Courts below.
2. Mr. Mohsin Javed, learned counsel for petitioners vehemently urged that judgment and decree passed by trial Court completely violates requirement of Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. Because neither points for determination were specified nor judgment has been given in respect of all the issues. He argued that issue of limitation has not even been touched by either of the forums below which according to him has seriously prejudiced the stand taken by petitioners. To substantiate his submissions reliance was placed on observations in cases (i) 1982 SCMR 816, (ii) 1983 CLC 1450 and (i.e) 1985 CLC 734. Learned counsel further contended that even if question of limitation was not raised on the available record it was obligatory for the trial Court to have determined the same before dilating upon merits. Reliance was also placed on the reported judgment PLD 1988 SC 631 and 632.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Tahir Mohammad Khan, learned counsel for respondent, strenuously argued that evidence led by plaintiff/respondent conclusively established plantation of disputed four date trees on his property, therefore; both the Courts below were justified in granting and confirming decree for allowing him half share of the produce. According to him even if some procedural defects in passing the impugned judgments exist the Revisional Court on the principle enunciated in (i) PLD 1986 SC (A J & K) 65, (ii) PLD 1964 SC 97 and 196_. SC 434 could itself on consideration of available record specially when parties had adduced all the evidence can pass a final order/judgment in the matter. It was submitted by him that remand for technicalities in the circumstances would frustrate ends of justice.
2. 4.1 have considered the arguments addressed by learned counsel for parties in the light of case- law relied upon by them.
3. There is no doubt that evidence has already been led by parties and more or less record is complete. Therefore, appellate or revisional forums within the purview of Order 41, Rule 24,C.P.C.
4. Can finaly adjudicate upon the matter by dilating upon issues not determined by the trial Court.
5. Nevertheless such powers need to' be sparingly exercised mainly for preventing and controlling unnecessary prolongation therefore by way of general principle remand should not be lightly ordered. But in the instant case trial Court has neither touched question of limitation, nor discussed any issue. Learned Qazi felt contended by vaguely observing that claim of plaintiff stood proved.
6. Absolutely no reasons were assigned for reaching such conclusions. Thus, original decree has been passed flagrantly disregarding requirements of Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C. Similarly f Mailis-e-Shoora, while deciding the appeal has failed to discuss any aspect, and has merely observed that no defect existed in the order of trial Court. Such slipshod method of deciding valuable rights or claims of parties cannot be permitted or appreciated. For authority reference can be made to 1989 SCMR 1414. The Civil Court as for as possible should necessarily determine each issue elaborately. It would be profitable to reproduce here relevant observation of reported case, Ali Muhammad v.
7. Muhammad Hayat and others (1982 SCMR 816).
8. "The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of trial Court. The matter, therefore, was brought before the Lahore High Court and was taken up by a learned Single Judge of the said Court of Multan. The learned Judge held that the judgment of the trial Court was not properly written because while deciding issues Nos. 1 to 5 he failed to give reasons upon each separate issue and that the learned Additional District Judge in his appellate judgment also did not attend to these issues in a legal and proper manner. Attention in this connection was drawn to the provisions of Order XX, rule 5 of the C.P.C. Which provide that "in suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of these issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit" and it was observed that the trial Judge was bound to give reasons for his decision on each separate issue and the disposal of issues Nos. 1---5 by simply observing that "all the issues have no substantive force in view of findings given under issue No. 6" was not proper decision in accordance with law. He, therefore, accepted the revision petition, set aside the impugned judgments and decree of the trial Court and that of the learned Additional District Judge and remanded the case to the trial Court for re-writing the judgment after hearing the parties with the direction that the trial Court should decide the case within two months. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.
9. (2)Ch. Muhammad Farooq learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was no lawful jurisdiction for remand of the case to the trial Court for re-writing the judgment by it and that the order passed by the High Court was outside the ambit of Order XLI, Rule 25, C.P.C.
10. (3)We do not agree. The learned trial Court had disregarded, the mandatory provisions of Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C. And, therefore, had acted in exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity. The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was competent to make such order in the case as it thought Fit."
11. Relying on the above-quoted principle, I am inclined to hold that impugned judgments of two Courts below being patently defective deserve to be set aside. Additionally during arguments my attention was drawn to certified copy of Revenue Record showing petitioners' ownership over suit' land. Learned counsel for respondent however challenged admissibility of said document primarily because same was not tendered before trial Court at appropriate stage. Keeping in view rival claims of parties I am satisfied that properly proved Revenue Record would be crucial for fair and just determination of real controversy. Obviously revisional jurisdiction can be exercised in aid of justice and to obviate hardship or technicalities. Therefore, relying on the analogy of principle enunciated in case Muhammad Siddique. Muhammad Umer v. Australasia Bank (PLD 1966 SC 684) 1 am inclined to allow the petitioners an opportunity for proving revenue document with full facility of rebuttal to respondent.
12. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, petition is partly accepted. Impugned judgments and decree are set aside and case remanded to learned Qazi Turbat for allowing further evidence only in the terms specified above, and thereafter write judgment afresh on all the issues as contemplated by law. It is further observed that trial Court should try to dispose the matter, expeditiously at the most within three months.