MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.-This Civil Revision calls in question the judgment and the decree dated 28.5.1992 passed by the learned District Judge, Abbottabad affirming the judgment and the decree passed on 9.12.1986 by a learned Civil Judge First Class, Abbottabad, whereby the suit for possession of land measuring 17 marias bearing khasra No.460 and situate in village Pawa had been decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.
2. Brief facts forming the background of the dispute are that plaintiff- respondent filed a suit against defendant-petitioner for possession of land in dispute on the allegation that it belonged to him and proforma-defendant No.2 which the defendant-respondent No.1 about a year prior to the institution of the suit had not only illegally occupied but also got the entries of "Bila-Lagan- Batassawar-e-Milkiat" recorded in the Register of Crop Inspection.
3. Mr. Janat Noor, proforma defendant No.2 conte-judgment. Mir Alam defendant No.1 contested the suit, wherein he, inter-alia. Repudiated the claim of plaintiffs title to the disputed land.
4. The learned Civil Judge, after appraising evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff mainly on his findings on issue No.10 which is to the following effect:- "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for?
5. The answering defendant, as stated earlier, filed appeal to the learned District Judge. After perusal of the entire revenue record placed on the file, he upheld the findings of the learned trial Court and observed that "in the written statement the defendant-petitioner had laid claim to Khasra No.460/1 measuring 1 kanal and 13 marlas whereas the subject matter in dispute is distinctly khasra No.460, which, according to the unobjected report of the local Commissioner bears Khatooni No.92 as compared to khasra No.460/1 Khatooni whereof is 179 and that the alleged vendor of the defendant-petitioner had never remained either owner or in possession of khasra No.460. The appellate Court has, therefore, come to the conclusion that defendant-petitioner was taking advantage of similarity of not only the Khasra No.460 but also from his name Mir Alam, which was similar to another Mir Alam son of Akhtar Ali, although even the letter had also never remained owner-in-possession of khasra No.460 which in fact belonged to Juma son of Muzaffar Khan. Similarly the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendant-petitioner which was not accepted by the trial Court also did not find favour with the learned District Judge. As result of these findings the appeal of the plaintiff was also dismissed.
6. Feeling still dis-satisfied, the plaintiff-petitioner has come up in revision.
7. Mr. Shabbir Hussain Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, raised the following contentions:-
(i) That the two .Courts have mis-read the entries of revenue record, in that, the land which originally belonged to Mir Alam son of Akbar Ali had been purchased about 50 years back by the petitioner and he has been in its possession since then.
(ii) That in the instant case, the settled principle of law that demarcation proceedings are to be conducted by a person who is well-versed in revenue law but EAC-II appointed in this case as a Local Commissioner to demarcate the land was deficient in this regard and that is why he did not commence measurements from three different permanent points and thus the findings based on the report of- demarcation aforesaid were not sustainable in law.
(iii) That the learned District Judge, having failed to give findings issue- wise, has recorded the judgment in violation of the provision of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct to urge that the two Courts below have been the victim of mis-reading or mis-construing the volumnous revenue record placed on the record. The learned trial Judge had not only taken notice of all the entries relevant to the settlement of real controversy but had also appreciated them in their true perspective. In so far as the learned District Judge is concerned, he has pin-pointed the whole dispute in para 4 of his judgment and had rightly maintained that the petitioner has attempted to take undue advantage of not only the numerators by in-advertance of the Settlement Authorities in describing khasra No.460/1 and 460/1 in stead of khasra No.460 and 460/1, but also the similarity of his name as Mir Alam "who is but son of Akbar Ali". Nonetheless even the said Mir Alam is not proved to have been an owner-in-possession of khasra No.460 which in turn is shown to be the property of Jumma son of Muzaffar Khan". In view of the above discussion I am of the opinion that the first contention having no substance must collapse. Even otherwise the two Courts below have properly read the evidence and have applied their mind consciously to the legal and factual aspects of the case and have given sound reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at and as such exercised jurisdiction quite legally. The learned counsel has failed to show that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below, in any manner, suffered from illegality or material irregularity. No mis-reading or non-reading has been pointed out either.
9. The criticism of the learned counsel on unobjected report of demarcation Ex.C.W.1/1 is misplaced, in that, it was not a demarcation proceedings stricto senso. It was directed to be carried out with a view to clarity as to how khasra No.460/1 has been described twice in the settlement record and for that matter the learned EAC-II had submitted his report which does not suffer from any impropriety or illegality. The second contention of the learned counsel has thus no substance and stands repelled.
10. The contents of the appellate judgment are regulated by Order XL1 Rule 31 C.P.C. The appellate Court is not required to give the findings on each and every issue. Nonetheless, where the original judgment under Order XX Rule 4 C.P.C, should contain:-
(1) A concise statement of the case.
(2) The points for determination i.e. The issues.
(3) The decision of the Court with regard to each issue, and reasons for the decision.
As against this an appellate judgment should state the points arising for determination, its decision thereon and the reasons for its decision. The term "points for determination" refers to all the important questions involved in the case, such a judgment need not include points which have been either abandoned or which are not necessary for the disposal of the case. The learned appellate Court has decided the points for determination and has also furnished reasons therefor.
I, therefore, find no fault with the impugned appellate judgment nor any such defect was pointed out as to render the judgment unlawful. The appellate Court is also not required to give its findings on each and every issue or record a judgment issue wise as is the case with the judgment of the trial Court. Nonetheless, the mere fact that the judgment does not deal with all the evidence, or all the circumstances or that the description of evidence is unsatisfactory or that the judgment is short is not by itself a ground for interference in the civil revision. If the requirements of Rule 31 ibid have been substantially complied with and it is evident from the judgment that the Judge was conscious of the matters involved and the decision has been pronounced on the basis of the record then it would be taken as a substantial compliance therewith. The last argument of the leamed counsel is thus not tenable.
11. As a sequal to what has been observed above there is no substance in this civil revision which is dismissed in limine.