JUDGMENT CH. UAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellants filed petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 before learned Addl. D.J., Lahore. The respondents filed written statement controverted the allegations levelled in the petition. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed:- ISSUES.
(1) Whether the petition is within time? OPP
(2) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR
(3) Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPR
(4) Whether the property in question was purchased and constructed by the petitioner and is not a Waqt' property? OPP
(5) Relief.
The petition was dismissed by the learned Addl. D.J. Vide impugned [judgment and decree dated 1.5.2000.
2. The appellants' counsel submits that learned A.D.J. Was not [justified to dismiss the petition of appellant as time-barred, therefore, (,findings of the Trial Court on Issue No. 1 is not sustainable in the eyes of (pw; that the learned A.D.J. Without discussing the evidence on record summarily decided Issues Nos. 2 and 4 against appellant; that notification [dated 21.8.1997 relied by the learned A.D.J. Was not placed on record [properly in accordance with the provisions of Civil Procedure Code.
3. Respondents' counsel submits that learned A.D.J. Decided the [case in accordance with evidence, after proper appreciation of evidence; [that it is not necessary to discuss the evidence on record by the Trial Court [in its judgment.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of [learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted fact (that the learned A.D.J. Dismissed the petition of appellant without [discussing the evidence on record, therefore, impugned judgment is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Order 20, Rule 5, C.P.C. The [learned A.D.J. Did not discuss the evidence on record at all and did not [decide the same in accordance with mandatory provisions of C.P.C, It is [better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned judgment of Trial Court to resolve the controversy between the parties:- "In the instant case, notification was published on 21.1.1977 whereas the present application was 12.12.1991 and was barred by time. Under Issue No. 2 it is held that the petition is not maintainable in its present form. In view of findings on issues Nos. 1 and 4 so far as issue No. 3 is concerned it is not proved for want of evidence by the respondent. Resultantly the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.
The aforesaid operative part of the impugned judgment reveals that the Court below has not applied his conscious mind to the relevant evidence and has not given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by him. It is well-settled principle of law that Court is obliged to consider the evidence present on record, judged its value in the light of legal principle applicable thereto and then pronounced its final opinion. It is the result of accumulative effect on the mind of the Court that finds expression in its final opinion. In the present case the learned Trial Court did not discuss and considered evidence at all meaning thereby the judgment is result of surmises and conjectures. The provisions of C.P.C, are applicable while deciding the petition u/S. 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979.
5. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned judgment and decree dated 1.5.2000 is set aside and case is remanded back to the Trial Court to decide it afresh after hearing the parties and decide the petition in accordance with Order, 20 Rule 5, CPC. I myself do not want to give findings on aforesaid issues so that either party shall not be deprived one remedy of appeal before this Court. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore, on 24.7.2000. Since it has become an old petition, the learned Addl. District Judge is expected to dispose of petition expeditiously. There is no order as to costs.