1. ' Hafiz Karim Bakhsh was a refugee from village Jhagron in Ludhiana District of India. He owned some property there and abandoned it on the eve of partition. Upon migration to Pakistan, he settled in Shorkot. He submitted a claim for verification of the property abandoned by him. In lieu of his verified claim, some property was transferred to him in Mohallah Maidanwala of Shortkot City.
2. Description and the nature of the property transferred to him was given in pars-2 of the plaint. In the month of June, 1969, Hafiz Karim Bakhsh divided his property among his progeny consisting of his sons and daughteRs, In this process, plaintiffs claimed settlement of (a) part of above property upon them. Later, by two documents dated 17-12-1969 and 28-3-1970, Hafiz Karim Bakhsh transferred his property to his other sons, daughters and grand-children in specified shares.
3. Plaintiffs felt that this disposition of property was in derogation of earlier settlement and filed a civil suit for annulment of above two documents and asserted that those were not binding on them.
4. Hafiz Karim Bakhsh was then alive and was defendant No,1 in the suit with his sons and daughters etc. He and other defendants submitted written statements. The suit was tried on number of issues in the trial Court and parties had given evidence on them. On 18-7-1975, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs preferred an appeal. It was dismissed on 28-5-1977 by learned Additional District Judge, Jhang. He neither adverted to the evidence nor to the findings recorded on it by the trial Court. He did not independently examine material controversial points between the parties for their satisfactory decision by him. His judgment was neither legal nor proper. It gave a clear impression of a sketchy approach. His was a final Court of fact. He A was obliged to examine the factual as well as legal plane of the controversy for its proper decision. Judicial application of mind wanting, Civil revision deserves to be allowed for re-consideration and decision afresh of the appeal preferred by the petitioners by learned District Judge, Jhang. I would, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 28-5-1977 and direct re-decision of the appeal upon existing records by learned District Judge, Jhang. There shall be no order as to costs in this Court.
5. ' Records shall be returned. Parties shall appear in the Court below on 20-3-1993. In case of non- appearance, follow up notices shall be issued to them for securing their presence before the Court.