' This revision petition arises from concurrent findings of two Courts below. The suit. Was decreed on 12-2-1996 and the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree was dismissed by Mr. Muhammad Siddiq Sikandar, learned Additional District Judge, Taunsa Sharif, Camp at D.G. Khan on 25-31998.
2. The suit filed by the respondents was for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs were owners of property, the full description of which they had provided in the head note of the plaint having purchased it from Muhammad Bashir against a consideration of Rs,1,550 in the year 1967 and vide a sale mutation No,570. It was further their case that mutation No,561 against the same property was based on collusion and fraud and was of no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs. As a consequential relief they prayed that the defendants be restrained from taking over the possession of the said property. The property is located in Mauza Bandowani, Tehsil and District D.G. Khan.
3. The petitioners, who were defendants below submitted their written statement while Muhammad Bashir the original owner of the property also filed a consenting written statement.
4. Out of the pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Court had framed 5 issues and these are reproduced below:
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? O.P.D.
(2) Whether the defendant No,2 is entitled to recover special cost under section 35-A of C.P.C.?
O.P.D.
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of averments contained to the plaint? O.P.P.
(4) Whether the mutation No,561 is against law and facts and is liable to cancellation? O.P.P.
(5) Relief.
5. The evidence adduced by the parties on these issues was both documentary and verbal. The documentary evidence inter alia consisted of the copies of register of rights, copies of plaint in a previous suit, copies of mutation under reference and copies of Khasra Girdawari. The defendants side also produced documents like copies of register of rights and Khasra Girdawari.
6. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 23-2-1993 passed by Rao Muhammad Saleem Akhtar Khan, Civil Judge Class-II, D.G. Khan.
7. The matter was taken in appeal before the learned District Judge, D.G. Khan who vide his judgment and decree, dated 5-71994 framed additional issues and remanded the case to the Trial Court for a decision afresh while also directing that the parties be allowed to adduce additional evidence on the issues.
8. The Trial Court after closing the evidence of the plaintiffs under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code called upon the defendants to adduce further evidence. Later after hearing ex pane arguments the le--ned Trial Court gave its judgment and decree, dated 12-3-1996 which is impugned and whereby the suit was decreed.
9. The petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 12-2-1996. He also filed an application under Order XL. Rule 24, C.P.C., for adducing additional evidence. While a third party also filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C., for being impleaded as respondent.
Ultimately the learned Additional District Judge Taunsa Sharif Camp at D.G. Khan vide his orders, dated 25-3-1998 and his judgment and decree of even date dismissed the application for additional evidence and for impleading other as party under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., and also dismissed the appeal.
10. Consequently this revision pelition against those concurrent findings.
11. While hearing the arguments and going through the judgment under reference this Court observed that whereas, a number of issues had been framed in this case. These had not been separately discused by the Trial Court. Rather the Trial Court disposed of the case in the shape of writing a three paged essay while making a jumbled crochets in the shape of a judgment. This he did despite the fact that he had with him the earlier judgment passed by his predecessor dismissing the suit in which judgment was given issuewise on the five issues which have been framed at that time.
12. The learned Additional District Judge disposed of the appeal in a similar manner without debating the issues and through his opinion expressed in the following words: "The learned Trial Court has rightly found from ex parte evidence that the plaintiffs-respondents are owner in possession of the land in question and this version has been corroborated and proved by the Revenue Record and the evidence adduced by plaintiffs-respondents. The appellant- defendant's version is without substance, hence the appeal is dismissed. File be consigned to record room."
13. Judgments and decrees whether by a Trial Court or an Appellate Court are to be given in accordance with the periphery prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code and if that is not followed,' the judgment and decree becomes illegal Order XX at the Civil Procedure Code speaks of the manner in which a Judgment has to be pronounced, the way it is to be attested and signed and the way a Court has to express how it appreciate evidence adduced by the parties and came to a conclusion on a logical basis.
14. Section 2(9) of the Civil Procedure Code defines judgment and it means the statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. It may not necessarily deal with all the matters in issue in a suit but it has to determine thoe issues, the decision whereof will have the effect of adjudicating all the matters of controversy or will result in a final disposal of the suit. One of the essential element of a judgment is a statement of the grounds for decision. It is also said to be an expression of the opinion of the Court arrived at after due consideration of the evidence and all the arguments.
15. The terms "judgment" and "order" in their widest sense may be said to include any decision given by a Court on a question or questions at issue between the parties to a proceedings properly before the Court.
16. A final judgment determines the principal matter in question conclusively so that if it is given for the plaintiff it is conclusive against the defendant and if it is given for the defendant, it is conclusive against the plaintiff. (Standard Discount Co. v. La Grange (1877), 3 C.P.C. 67, per Brett, L.J., at p.71).
Such judgment being judgment in personam should fully determine their rights and a Judge is required to have used all his skills in highlighting each and every point under controversy and his own reasons for agreeing with either of the parties on those points.
17. Order XX, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code enjoins upon the Trial Court to state its decision on each issue. It reads as follows:--- "5. 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 anyone or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit."
18. A plain reading of Order XX, Rule 5 reflects that a judgment should contain a finding on all the issues separately unless the parties do not rely upon an issue. This methodology in appealable cases has to be followed more strictly. In this connection reference may be made to the following authorities:---
(i) Messrs Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd. Karachi v. Sheikh Rehan-ud-Din PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lah.
63.
(ii) Dr. Syed Ali Sajjad Bukhari and 6 others v. Sabir Ali Shah and 4 others 1987 CLC 229.
(iii) Abdul Karim v. Hoshiar Khan and 2 others 1983 CLC 1450.
19. Order XX of the Civil Procedure Code after speaking of the judgment then proceeds to describe a periphery for drawing various kinds of decrees.
20. Order XLI of the C.P.C., relates to appeals from original decrees. Its provisions provided for the methodology of filing of appeals and prescribe the form in which a memorandum of appeal is to be drawn and presented before a Court. It also speaks of the grounds which are to be taken in the appeal. The manner in which the interlocutory orders may be pressed. How the appeal is to be registered, when a date is to be fixed for its hearing. How a notice of service is to be published.
When and how a remand is to be made. It also reflects when an Appellate Court may frame issues and proceed with those. When an application for production of additional evidence is to be made.
And the most important thing which is very relevant to the case of today, is as to how a judgment is to be written and what are to be its contents. This is referred to in Order XLI, Rule 31, which is reproduced below in extenso:--- "31. Contents, date and signature of judgment.---The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state---
(a) the points for determination;
(b) the decision thereon;
(c) the reasons for the decision; and,
(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled; and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein."
21. It further enjoins the Court to dispose of miscellaneous applications filed through separate specific orders. Reference in this case may be made to the case of Pak. Carpet Industries Ltd. v.
Government of Sindh and two others 1993 CLC 334 (Karachi).
22. The points for determination referred to in Order XLI relates to the important questions involved in the case and. Therefore. Do not include issues which have been abandoned and not pressed.
Law enjoins aand Appellate Court to record the points for determination and focus on these points for coming to a conclusion whether its Court below had dealt with all those points. Law further enjoins that the Appellate Court gives its decision on each point which should be self-explanatory, self-contained, throwing a light on the controversy and simply stated in the nature of a speaking order.
23. It had been emphasised time and again by the superior Courts that reasons have to be given in the judgments for the decision arrived at so that the parties after reading those reasons may decide whether to prefer a further appeal or go for a revision or leave the matter as it is because of the pursuasive value of the judgment. Even in case of an affirmative judgment reasons are to be given.
24. Of course the Courts may not to be so mechanical. But they also cannot do away with reasons reflecting the logical conclusions arrived at by them.
25. The object of Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C., is to keep the various points arrived for purposes of decision distinct and brought separately instead of lumping than together in the shape of judgment which would only lead to confusion.
(i) Juma Khan v. Mst. Shamim and 3 others 1992 CLC 1022 Karchi.
(ii) Muhammad Ibrahim v. Mst. Mehmooda 1991 CLC 1795 Karachi,
(iii) Rafiq Abbas Zaidi and 3 others v. Mst. Shahida Begum and 3 others 1983 CLC 2036.
(iv) Nisar Ahmad v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore and another PLD 1976 Lah.
1162,
(v) Rahim Shah and another v. Ishaq and others PLD 1954 Pesh.
92.
27. It is unfortunate that some members of the subordinate judiciary show reluctance in following the prescribed procedures and come out with their own procedure for the sake of convenience in deciding the fate of cases involving valuable property rights of the litigants. Forgetting that they were not wiser than the law-makers who drafted the Civil Procedure Code (Act No,V of 1908) which has stood the test of time for over a century. The Civil Courts are, therefore, to strictly follow the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code both in letter and in spirit and save wastage of time which take place on account of their aberrations.
26. Judgment writing is a technical subject and Judges should be well skilled in writing judgments in accordance with the laid procedure. If a judgment offends the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code it is not acceptable in law and has to be set aside. Therefore, non-adherence to the procedural law constitutes a material irregularity and calls for interference by this Court through its visitorial jurisdiction. In this connection reference may he made to the following cases:---
(i) Juma Khan v. Mst. Shamim and 3 others 1992 CLC 1022 Karachi.
28. After these observations, this Court is setting aside both the concurrent findings of the Courts below and is constrained to remand this case to the learned District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, with directions that he may entrust it to the Senior Civil Judge who in view of the age of the case and the fact that only a judgment is now to be written after hearing the parties on all the issues separately and as per the observations given hereinabove should make all efforts in deciding it afresh and within a period of a month. Parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge on 15-2-2000. A progress report is to be submitted by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan by the 31st of March, 2000.