The petitioner has assailed, through the instant revision petition, the order of remand of the appellate Court whereby the case was sent back to the trial Court for giving "speaking judgment on the subject viz. On application dated 8-5-1988 for setting aside the ex parte decree"..
2. The background of the case is that the petitioner instituted a declaratory Suit No.13/1 on 17-1-1981 against one Mst. Khawadija in respect of the disputed house which was decreed in favour on 28-1- 1981 through a consent decree. This decree was challenged by Mst. Bakht Jana on 27-2-1982 vide Suit No.25/1 alleging therein that the decree was the result of fraud and collusion and that she is the owner of the disputed house. The learned trial Court granted decree on 16-11-1982 by observing that:--
3. The petitioner also instituted suit for redemption against the present respondents on 8-4-1981 vide Suit No.216/1. After issuance-of the summons the suit was dismissed on 29-4-1981 for non- prosecution but was restored and then again an ex parte decree was granted on 28-6-1981 which was challenged by one Mst. Shamruza etc. Through an application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C.
On 24-11-1984 and which application was dismissed on 19-3-1988 on the basis of an oath taken by the petitioner. The respondents also challenged the said decree dated 28-6-1981 through a similar application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. The application was contested by the petitioner.
Evidence was produced by both the parties in respect of their respective claims. The learned trial Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the same was time-barred. The appellate Court, as earlier stated, held the judgment of the trial Court as not a speaking one and remanded the case for a fresh decision and of which the petitioner had felt himself aggrieved and approached this Court.
4. The learned trial Court has referred to a portion of the statement of Muhammad Jan, respondent No.1. Whereby he had admitted that the case of Mst. Shamruza was decided on the basis of an oath on 19-3-1988 and this was taken by the trial Court that he was in the knowledge of the ex parte decree and which fact i.e. The knowledge takes away the ground from the petitioner for condonation. The appellate Court was critical of the judgment of the trial Court by observing that all, the facts have not been adverted to and nothing was said about the other applicant Mst. Bakht Jana with regard to the time and her knowledge. The perusal of the record also shows that the trial Court has not taken pain to refer or to take into consideration the other relevant facts of the case i.e. The date of knowledge of the respondents of the said ex parte decree alleging to be the result of fraud and collusion which had been challenged under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. And the order sheets and the mode of service of the respondents in the suit which culminated in the said ex pane decree, in addition to the fact referred to by the Appellate Court. The order of remand of the appellate Court for giving a speaking judgment, and which is also the requirement of law that, a judgment shall contain a concised statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such a decision which (the detailed reasoning of various aspects of the case) in the instant case are lacking, in not of the nature which requires interference.
5. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.