1. ' This revision application under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-4-1997 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Dadu in Civil Appeal No,3 of 1990 modifying the judgment and decree dated 20-12-1989 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mehar in Suit No,21 of 1983 with certain observations.
2. ' The facts, briefly stated in the plaint filed by respondent No,5, Shamsuddin, were that he and one Muhammad Siddique had purchased agricultural land bearing serial Nos.273, 303/A, 302/A, 302/B and 274, Deh Rahooja, Taluka Khairpur Nathan Shah, District Dadu measuring 70.1 Acres hereinafter referred as the 'subject land' from claimants Hassan Muhammad and Fateh Muhammad through their attorney respondent No,4, Chaudhry Muhammad Bashir, after verifying their title from the Revenue Record, through registered sale-deed dated 8-12-1982. Before execution of the sale-deed, the respondent No,4 also obtained 'Fard' sale certificate from the Revenue Authorities. The possession of the subject land was also delivered by the said attorney of claimants Hassan Muhammad and Fateh Muhammad to the plaintiff and his co-sharer Muhammad Siddique. It is further the case of the respondent No,5 that the applicant had knowledge about allotment of the subject land to the abovenamed Hassan Muhammad and Fateh Muhammad under the rehabilitation laws, about acquisition of interest by the respondent No,5 through the registered sale-deed and about the delivery of possession of the subject land. It is averred in the plaint that the applicant subsequently approached the plaintiff and the co-sharer Muhammad Siddique for re-sale of Survey No,274 out of the subject land to him who on account of refusal to accede to his demand, got annoyed and managed initiation of proceedings through issuance of notice by the Mukhtiarkar, Khairpur Nathan Shah requiring appearance of the plaintiff and his co-sharer before the respondent No,2, Assistant Commissioner, Mehar, on 9-1-1983. It is further stated in the plaint that the respondent No,2 through his order dated 17-2-1983 held that the allotment of subject land in favour of the above-named Hassan Muhammad and Fateh Muhammad under the rehabilitation laws was fictitious and fraudulent. In the submission of the respondent No,5, the abovereferred order dated 17-2-1983 passed by the respondent No,2 was illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondent No,5, in the circumstances, filed the suit for declaration to the effect that he and his brother co-sharer Muhammad Siddique are bona fide purchasers of the suit land and that the respondent No,2 had no jurisdiction to determine legality or otherwise of the allotment made under the rehabilitation laws. Decree for permanent injunction was also sought to restrain the respondents Nos.1 to 3 and the applicant from interfering with the title and possession of the respondent No,5 in respect of the suit land.
3. ' The suit was mainly contested by the applicant who in his written statement pleaded that the order dated 17-2-1983 passed by the respondent No,2 was lawful and valid. Besides, some illegal objections were taken including the objection that the respondent No,5 ought to have challenged the above referred order dated 17-2-1983 under the Revenue laws and that the subject land had lawfully been placed at the disposal of Barrage Authorities: On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were settled:--
(1) Whether impugned order of defendant No,2 is not legal and proper, if so, what is its effect?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is not legal and bona fide purchaser of the suit land?
(3) Whether the suit land is not in possession of the plaintiff?
(4) Whether the suit is bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties?
(5) Whether the defendant No,1 was a sitting Hari of the suit land when it was sold to the plaintiff and his co-sharer?
(6) Whether the suit is not maintainable?
(7) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction?
(8) What should the decree be?
4. ' After recording evidence, the suit was dismissed on the basis of finding on Issue No,1 holding that the respondent No,5 ought to have availed his remedy under the revenue laws by challenging the order dated 17-2-1983 in appeal. It was further held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land and the proceedings were also bad for non-joinder of co-sharer Muhammad Siddique who was a necessary party to the proceedings. It was further held that the applicant was not a sitting Hari of the subject land. The respondent No,4 preferred Civil Appeal No,3 of 1990 before the District Judge, Dadu which has been decided through the impugned judgment.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Hashim Chandio, learned counsel for the applicant, has assailed the judgment passed in appeal, firstly, on the ground that the learned appellate Judge had failed to record judgment issue-wise and separately in terms of the requirement of Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. The provisions of Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. May for the sake of reference be re-produced at this stage which are as follows:- "Court to state its decision on each issue.---In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for decision of the suit."
6. The above provision is evidently applicable to the original Court which hears a civil suit. As regards appellate Court, the requirement of recording finding issue-wise is not mandatory. It is sufficient for the appellate Court to deal with all the issues as are material for disposal of the controversy excepting those abandoned by the appellant. An appellate Court recording its findings on all the points rose before it, without discussing the issues separately, cannot be said to have committed any illegality or error. I am supported in such view by judgment in the case of Umar Din v.
7. Ghazanfar Ali and others 1991 SCM R 1816 wherein contention similar to that urged by the learned counsel for the applicant was repelled in the following terms while deciding leave to appeal:-- "We have seen the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge and find no merit in the contention. It is true that the learned District Judge has not discussed each issue separately but he has given his findings on all the points that were raised before him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment recorded by him is not a proper one."
8. ' The learned counsel for the applicant while elaborating his submissions has urged that the learned appellate Judge has failed to decide issues regarding under-valuation and possession of the subject land. As to the question of valuation, I find that the respondent No,5 did not seek the relief of possession but had sought declaration and injunction while asserting that the possession of the suit land was with him. For the purpose of declaration and injunction, the court-fee is not required to be paid ad valorem on the market value of the subject property and the plaintiff can determine his valuation about court-fee and jurisdiction. The contention of the applicant's counsel could have had different effect had decree for possession been sought. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant with regard to undervaluation of the proceedings is without force. As to the submission that such point was not considered by the learned appellate Judge, suffice to observe that no issue with regard to wrong valuation of the proceedings was settled and the objection, if any, about valuation is to be presumed to have not been pressed by the applicant. As regards Issue No,3 relating to possession, I find from the impugned judgment that the learned appellate Judge has discussed such aspect in the penultimate paragraph thereof. The contention of the learned counsel that the learned appellate Judge has failed to discuss the issue regarding possession of the subject land is thus without substance.
9. ' The next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the appellate Judge has wrongly set aside the finding of the Civil Judge regarding legality of order dated 17-2-1983 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The contention of the applicant's counsel is that the respondent No,5, if aggrieved, ought to have assailed the order dated 17-2-1983 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mehar through appeal under section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 and having failed to avail such remedy, the respondent No,5 could not challenge the legality or propriety of such order in proceedings before the Civil Court. The learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to judgment in the case of Khuda Bux v. Government of Sindh and others reported in PLD 1989 Karachi 85. The cited judgment was delivered in petition preferred under Article 199 of the Constitution whereby an order in respect of entries in the Revenue Record passed by an Assistant Commissioner was directly challenged. The learned Judges of the Division Bench who had heard the matter, came to the conclusion that the Assistant Commissioner had passed the order falling within the parameters of his jurisdiction, and therefore, such order ought to have been assailed before the hierarchy prescribed under the Revenue laws before approaching this Court in the constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for the reason that the remedy provided under the Revenue laws is an adequate and efficacious alternate remedy. In the present case, the finding contained in the impugned judgment is that the respondent No,2 lacked jurisdiction to determine the legality or otherwise of the allotment made under the rehabilitation laws. It is axiomatic by now that the civil Courts being the Courts of plenary jurisdiction can entertain challenge against any action or order passed by an administrative or quasi-judicial functionary which is coram non judice or without jurisdiction. Such view finds support in the cases Abdul Rauf and others v. Abdul Hamid Khan and another (PLD 1965 SC 671) and Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. The Improvement Trust (PLD 1965 SC 698). In the circumstances, the judgment in the case of Khuda Bux (Supra) cited by Mr. Chandio, is not applicable to the present case. The learned appellate Judge has, therefore, rightly considered the legality or otherwise of the order dated 17-2- 1983 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. As to the correctness of the finding that the Assistant Commissioner, Mehar lacked jurisdiction to determine the legality or other-wise of the allotment made under the rehabilitation laws, no arguments have been urged before me by the applicant's counsel. Even otherwise, it is quite well settled that after repeal of the evacuee laws w,e,f, 1st July, 1974, the Assistant Commissioner and other Revenue Authorities do not ,have jurisdiction under the settlement and rehabilitation laws, and therefore, no finding could lawfully be recorded by the respondent No,2 with regard to legality or otherwise of the allotment order issued in favour of claimants Hassan Muhammad and Fateh Muhammad from whom the respondent No,5 had acquired title. The grant of declaration in appeal to the effect that "the respondent No,2 has no jurisdiction to pass order against the allotment of claimants" was lawful and justified. No exception can be taken regarding such finding of the learned appellate Judge.
10. ' In the result the revision application, being without merit, is dismissed in limine. Consequently, Civil Miscellaneos Application No,168 of 1997 is also dismissed.
11. ' Before parting with the case it may be observed that the impugned judgment is not happily worded and could be more specific and clear. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned appellate Judge has modified the findings on Issue No,1 contained in the judgment and decree dated 20-12-1989 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mehar. The operative part of the impugned judgment is as follows:-- "In view of above observations the appeal stands dispose of. The parties are settled to bear their own costs. The Judgment and decree of the learned lower Court stands modified up to the observation and findings of this Court. The decree be prepared and the certified True Copies of the Judgment and decree of this Court alongwith Record and Proceedings of the Suit may be sent to the learned trial Court for compliance and necessary action."
12. ' The decree in appeal, prepared consequently, is in the following terms:-- "The above appeal coming up for final hearing before Mr. Abdul Aziz Memon, IVth Additional District Judge, Dadu in presence of Mr. Ghulam Akbar Qureshi, Advocate for appellant and in presence of Mr. Muhammad Hashith Chandio, Advocate for respondent No,4, and in absence of respondents Nos.1 to 3 and 5. It is ordered on 28th day of April, 1997, that the Judgment and Decree of the learned lower Court stands modified up to the observations and findings of this Court, as mentioned in Judgment. The parties are settled to bear their own costs."
13. ' The abovequoted portions do not show the extent and terms of modification of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge. It is elementary that decree drawn by the Court must not be vague leaving the parties to guess decision of the Court or to ascertain its terms from some other document. The decree must be precise, deliberate and couched in legal terminology. It must conform to the requirements of Order XX, rule 6, C.P.C. In the present case judgment in its entirety has to be read for reaching the conclusion that findings on Issue No,1 alone had been reversed. The operative portion of the appellate judgment and the decree do not contain formal expression of the adjudication. Let such matter, in the first instance, be looked into by the Member, Inspection Team of this Court and necessary instructions/action be taken to avoid recurrence of such lapse in future.