1. ' Through this Revision Application the applicant questions the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Vlth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East, and the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi East, in Suit No,1760/1975 and Civil Appeal No,43/1988 respectively. The learned Trial Court had framed the following issues in the matter: "(1) Whether the plaintiff is partner in the Suit factory having equal share with the defendant? If yes, to what effects?
(2) Whether the partnership is liable to dissolution due to acts of the defendant?
(3) Whether defendant is liable for rendering accounts of the factory? If yes, to what effect?
(4) Is the Plaintiff entitled to the relief claimed?
(5) Whether suit is not maintainable under law?
(6) Whether suit is barred under law?
(7) What should the decree be?"
2. ' On examining the evidence, oral and documentary, on the record the Trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent, by passing a preliminary decree of dissolution and accounts. On Appeal the learned Appellate Court reproduced the above issues in its Judgment, recorded the respective contentions of the parties and without adequately expressing itself on the controversy dismissed the appeal in the following words:- "After taking into consideration the documents, evidence and arguments I see no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed with costs."
3. ' Mr. Abdul Sattar Memon has urged before me that the disposal of the Appeal at the appellate level is not through a speaking order and besides the requirements of Order 41, rule 31, C.P.C. Of expressly recording the points for determination, decision thereon and reasons for the decision have not been fulfilled. On the other hand, Mr. Syed Ahmed Farooqui has urged that it was not necessary for the learned Appellate Court to discuss all the pieces of evidence separately and substantial compliance of Order 41, rule 31, C.P.C. Was sufficient, moreso because the appellate judgment was in affirmation of the one rendered at the Trial stage.
4. On hearing the learned counsel and pursuing the record it has become manifest that complicated questions of fact and law were mooted in the appeal which involved the existence of the alleged partnership, the effect of a number of documents which were claimed to have been signed in blank by the applicant on account of an alleged friendship between him and the respondent's husband, the apparent delay in submission of such documents and a number of other factors including the non-examination of the respondent's husband together with determination of the question as to whose responsibility was it to examine him. It was necessary, therefore, for the learned Appellate Court to expressly make mention of the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons therefor. No doubt as contended by Mr. Syed Ahmed Farooqui .Substantial compliance of the requirements of Order 41, rule 31, C.P.C. Would be enough and in a number of cases, which the learned counsel has cited it has been held that the rule may be relaxed as regards discussion of each and every piece of evidence generally and more particularly where the appellate judgment is in affirmation of that which was arrived at the Trial. No case has been cited and to my mind none may be available where neither the points for determination are mentioned at the appellate level nor specific decision thereon nor the reasons therefor. It does, at times, happen that only issues are reproduced in the appellate judgment and discussion centres round the same thereby ensuring substantial compliance. In such cases a purely technical view may be avoidable. However, where discussion is made only in the shape of recording the respective contentions of the parties without even adverting to the issues and without making manifest the central point of the dispute it can hardly be said that substantial compliance has been made. The directly applicable decisions on the point are those of Saeeduzzaman, J, as he then was, in Hassan Shah v. Malook Shah (1987 CLC 2281), and of Hyder All Pirzada, J. In Muhammad Zafar Nabi v.
5. Kutiyana Memon Association (1988 MLD 2524). The requirement has also been emphasised by Naimuddin, J., in Nasir Abbas v. Manzoor Hyder Shah (PLD 1989 SC 568).
6. In view of the above, since the case involves a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, I am constrained to set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court and to remand the case for decision on merits and in accordance with law. There will, however, be no order as to costs.