' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.-Petitioner Asadullah Khan (purchaser) filed a suit for specific performane of the property in question against respondent Abdul Karim (owner). The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Court. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Sindh High Court which has been dismissed in limine by the impugned order dated 8-12-1997 (the short order dismissing the revision petition was announced on 11-11-1997 and the detailed order is dated 8-12-1997). Leave has been sought by the petitioner/plaintiff through the above petition for leave. We have heard Mr. Ali Akbar, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner and Mr. Zafar Alam, learned Advocate Supreme Court, who has appeared on caveat for the respondent. We have also gone through the entire impugned order dated 8-12-1997 of the High Court dismissing in limine the revision petition of the petitioner.
The impugned order runs into 19 typed pages. The facts and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties before the High Court are recited in the first 17 pages and the revision petition has been disposed of for the reasons mentioned in pages Nos.18 and 19 of the impugned order which are reproduced here:-- "I have gone through the material placed with the case and I have also minutely examined the judgments of the Courts below. No doubt it has rightly been pointed out by Mr. Zafar Alam Khan, Advocate for the respondent that this is third of the litigation between the parties as mentioned hereinabove. The suit of the application was dismissed and first appeal was filed, during pendency of the appeal applicant filed application under Order 4 1 , ' Rule 27, C.P.C. Requesting permission for bringing documents to be allowed to be brought on record which application was dismissed Court by. This Court mentioned hereinabove. The first appeal filed by the application was allowed by this evidence, to hear the arguments of the Advocates for the parties on each and every issue and decide the matter. After remand of the matter, the trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the suit. The trial Court also discussed the evidence issue-wise and analysed the documents so produced before the Court. The reasons assigned by the trial Court appear to be very sound and balanced which were agitated In appeal before the learned District Judge Central. The Appellate Court also considered the contentions raised by the appellant and was pleased to dismiss the appeal with very comprehensive, sound and cogent reasons.
' The application for bringing additional evidence before the Appellate Court which according to me are very sound and does not call for any interference. The finding of the Courts below in any case are not perverse, the Courts below have very rightly considered the evidence so adduced by the parties and have rightly dismissed the suit and appeal of the applicant. The Courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error and have also not misread aspects.
' The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant as mentioned hereinbove is not relevant and helpful to the case of the applicant, whereas case-law relied upon by Mr. Zafar Alan learned' counsel for the respondent is very much helpful and applicable to the facts of the case dismissed hereinabove. I am also fortified in the view by judgments of their lordships of the Supreme Court mentioned hereinabove and I am of the considered opinion that present revision is devoid of merits and substance which must fail which is accordingly dismissed in limine. On 11-11- 1998 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties the same was dismissed by short order, above are the reasons for the same."
2. After going through the entire impugned order dated 8-12-1997 of the High Court, we reluctantly agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court has not given required reasons for dismissal of the revision petition. In the impugned order the High Court has observed that reasons assigned by the trial Court "appear to by very sound and balanced which were agitated in appeal before the learned District Judge Central. The Appellate Court also considered the contentions raised by the appellant and was pleased to dismiss the appeal with very comprehensive, sound and cogent reasons". It has also further been observed by the High Court that the findings of the Courts below are not perverse and the suit as well as the appeal were rightly dismissed and the Courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error. As regards the case-law, the High Court has observed that what was cited by the counsel for the petitioner was not relevant and helpful whereas the case-law relied upon by the counsel for the respondent was very much helpful and applicable to the facts of the case.
' In our view this is an appropriate case for remand to the High Court so that a reasoned order/judgment is passed.
3. As a result, this petition is converted into an appeal, which is allowed. The impugned order dated 8-12-1997 and short order dated 11-11-1997 are set aside. The result is that the revision petition filed by the petitioner/appellant will be deemed to be pending before the High Court at Katcha Peshi stage and the same may be disposed of at an early date preferably within 3 months, after hearing both the learned counsel, by a reasoned order or judgment, as the case may be.
' There shall be no order as to costs.