' This regular first appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, Chiniot, whereby he, on 1040-1989, decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent, M/s CIBA Geigy Ltd. For the recovery of Rs,1,77,459.86.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the impugned judgment is not a proper judgment within the meanings of section 2 and Order 20, Rule 4 of the C.P.C. Inasmuch as the evidence of the appellants/defendants was not discussed or disbelieved.
3. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial Court on the ground that the judgment contains the gist of the evidence of the witnesses produced by the appellants/defendants.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. I find that although the defendants had produced three witnesses, namely, Muhammad Anwar DW-1, Nazir Ahmad DW-2 and Riaz Hussain DW 3, yet the learned trial Court has neither considered nor discussed the statements of the DWs. After believing the evidence of the plaintiff, the trial Court was obliged to consider, discuss, believe/disbelieve the statements of the DWs. So, the impugned judgment is in reality one-sided judgment. The trial Court has failed to write a proper judgment. It does not show as to who were the defendants witnesses and what had they stated. Such like judgments cannot and should not be approved by this Court. So, this appeal is accepted for want of proper judgment and the case is remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision after hearing the arguments of counsel for the parties. The parties shall bear their own costs.