' Instant Civil Revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-91982 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore confirming the judgment and decree dated 18-4-1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Lahore decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent No,1.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that plaintiff/respondent No,1 filed a suit for possession mesne profits claiming himself to be owner of the suit property mentioned therein. The defendant/petitioner was summoned by the trial Court. Since he failed to submit his written statement, so the trial Court decreed the suit on 18-4-1982 by invoking the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 10 C.P.C.
Defendant/petitioner felt aggrieved of the said order dated 18-4-1982 and agitated the same in the Court of learned District Judge, Lahore. The matter was entrusted to Mr. Nazir Hussain, Additional District Judge, who vide judgment and decree dated 19-9-1982 affirmed the order passed by the trial Court.
3. Feeling aggrieved of the said orders the defendant/petitioner has assailed the same by way of instant Civil Revision.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner is that initial order dated 18-4-1982 is not a speaking order as it does not contain the reasoning for passing the said order. He further submitted that as plaintiff/respondent had claimed possession as well as mesne profits, so the trial Court was bound to ask the plaintiff/ respondent to adduce evidence in support of his claim and then in the light of evidence brought on record, could pass the impugned order.
This procedure having not been adhered to, the impugned orders suffer from , jurisdictional defect, and the Courts below have not exercised the jurisdiction vested in them in accordance with law.
6. Conversely the impugned orders have been supported by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No,1. His contention is that as his contention remained un rebutted so the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order dated 18-4-1982 without referring to documents annexed with the plaint and without recording evidence. Similarly the learned Additional District Judge, acted in accordance with law while maintaining the said order.
7. The plaintiff/respondent No,1 filed the Instant suit for possession with mesne profits claiming himself to be owner of suit property. As per stand of plaintiff/respondent No,1, he had filed certain documents with his plaint. However, the order, dated 18-4-1982 shows that the learned Civil Judge did not make any reference to the said documents and passed a slipshod and mechanical order.
Even if an order is to be passed under Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C., the Court has to look into the averments of the party and see if his claim is based on some footing or not. Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C.
Does not stipulate that whatever relief has been demanded, has to be granted even if not proved from the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case plaintiff/respondent claimed possession with mesne profit which could ordinarily be granted, if the plaintiff/respondent had proved his claim either through oral evidence or with documentary evidence. In either case, evidence has to be brought on record. The impugned order dated 18-4-1982 reveals that neither it has been passed on the basis of any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence. Had the impugned order been passed on the basis of some oral or documentary evidence it could be said that a judicious order has been passed. However, this is not the case in hand. The learned Courts below have simply passed the orders respectively without referring to any evidence on the basis of which the same was being passed. Thus, both the Courts below have not exercised the jurisdiction vested in them in accordance with law while passing the impugned orders. Accordingly Civil Revision is accepted and impugned orders are set aside. The suit is remanded to the learned District Judge, for its entrustment to a Court of competent jurisdiction and early disposal in accordance with law. Parties are left to bear their own cost.