1. ' This revision application under section 115, C.P.C. Has been filed to assail the judgment dated 16th February, 1994 passed by the 1st Senior Civil Judge Karachi, East (Mr. Inderyas Barkat) whereby suit for specific performance filed by the applicant against the respondent was dismissed.
2. ' The dispute in this matter is related to Shop No,36G-Burmi Colony, Landhi, Karachi. It is alleged that on 15-7-1993 the shop was vacated by the applicant and handed over temporarily possession of the same to the respondent for raising new construction, however, the applicant was allegedly kept on false hopes, therefore, he filed the suit for specific performance and prayed for the following reliefs:---
(a) To specifically perform their promise by delivering to plaintiff possession of Shop No,31 Jame Masjid Haquani 36-G, Landhi.
(b) Permanent Injunction against defendants restraining them to refrain from inducting any other tenant.
3. ' The respondent filed his written statement wherein he denied that the applicant was a tenant. It also stated that the applicant was tenant of the shop in question but he voluntarily vacated the same and handed over its possession to the defendant on 23-7-1993 as he wanted to shift his embroidery workshop to some spacious premises. The respondent also took up preliminary objection in the written statement regarding the maintainability of the suit itself. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court settled the following issues:
(1) Whether there is any privity of contract between the parties and the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the above suit?
(2) Whether the possession of suit premises was handed over to the defendant for the purpose of new construction of Madressa thereon?
(3) Whether the defendant had promised to return the possession to the plaintiff within the period of one and half month?
(4) Whether defendant was competent to enter into contract of lease with another tenant during statutory tenancy period?
(5) Whether defendant backed out his promise and dispossessed plaintiff otherwise the due course of law?
(6) Whether the suit is not maintainable?
(7) What should the decree be?
4. ' No evidence was recorded by the learned trial Court and after considering issues Nos.1 and 2 as legal issues and without giving any finding on the remaining issues the suit was dismissed.
5. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties Issues Nos.1 and 2 as framed are issues of law and facts but surprisingly the learned trial Court without any evidence on record came to the conclusion that there was no private of contract between the parties. It was further held, inter alia, as follows: "Even if the evidence to this effect was recorded there will be word against word, as such in my opinion, when no agreement or contract in writing is brought on record by the plaintiff, he cannot take intervention of the Court and ask for relief of specific performance."
6. The above conclusion is based on no evidence and no effort was made to allow the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective pleas. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court of Issues Nos.1 and 2 being arbitrary and palpably unjust are legally unsustainable. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the powers under revisional jurisdiction are limited as it applies only to cases involving the illegal assumption non-exercise or the irregular exercise of jurisdiction.
7. This submission of the learned counsel is correct but he failed to give any convincing reply when confronted with the observations of the learned trial Court to the effect that no agreement has been produced by the applicant in order to establish the fact that the premises in dispute was delivered by him to the respondent on the condition that after reconstruction the respondent would deliver the possession of the same to the applicant/plaintiff, power under section 115 can be exercised where the subordinate Court has passed an order in excess of jurisdiction or where it failed to exercise the jurisdiction or where the order passed is based on no evidence or it is based on inadmissible evidence or it is perverse or arbitrary or palpably unjust.
8. ' Yet another important aspect of the matter is that the learned trial Court did not give any finding on the remaining issues. While disposing of Revision Application No,79 of 1984 on 30-7-1995 this Court had observed inter alia, as under: "Time and again it has been the practice of the subordinate Courts to avoid giving findings on all the issues before it. Such a practice is to be deprecated as the same causes undue delay.
9. Attempts should be made by the Courts to give a finding on each and every issue before it so that at the appellate or revisional stages all issues can be agitated and there is little scope of remanding the case back for adjudication on these issues on which a finding had not been given."
10. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned judgment is palpably unjust and is based on material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction therefore, it is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh according to law after giving a reasonable chance of hearing to the parties and their learned advocates.