' This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 6-3-1994 of learned Additional District Judge, Mansehra, whereby Civil Appeal No,82/13 of 1992 filed by Muhammad Naseem Khan respondent No,1 impugning the judgment and decree, dated 26-9-1992 of learned Civil Judge, Mansehra was accepted and the suit was decreed.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Muhammad Nasim Khan, instituted suit against Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Colector, Mansehra and others, defendants for declaration to the effect that notice dated 20-8-1985 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Mansehra, requiring the plaintiff to deposit Rs,53,327 in Government Treasury is illegal, mala fide and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed that defendants be restrained to act upon the notice in question and adopt coercive measures against the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court settled the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own conduct to file the present suit?
(3) Whether the suit is time-barred?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for?
(5) Relief.
3. The parties led evidence before the trial Court and by judgment and decree, dated 26-9-1991 the suit was dismissed with costs. Civil Appeal No,82/13 of 1992 was filed which was accepted vide judgment and decree, dated 6-3-1994, which has given rise to the filing of instant revision petition.
4. Mr. Khan Afzal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended, inter alia, that no independent exercise was made by the learned appellate Court to review the evidence on record for dispensation of justice on merits and that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside as the same is not in consonance with the requirements of Order 20, Rule 5 read with Order 41, rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V) of 1908.
5. Contrarily Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan, Advocate representing respondent No,1 supported the impugned judgment and decree and prayed for its sustenance maintaining that the matter has been dealt with adequately in the light of the material on record and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners warranting interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
6. I have heard the arguments and submissions of learned counsel for the parties with reference to the evidence on record and the case-law cited at the bar.
7. A perusal of the record would indicate that Muhammad Nasim Khan respondent was awarded contracts for the addition of 26 class rooms in existing GMS/GHS Ghari Habibullah, replacement of existing Primary School Shohal Najab Khan, Mansehra and construction of residences for female teachers. It appears that the progress achieved having been found slow, the contractor was issued notices and telegrams from time to time to accelerate the pace of work but notices and the telegrams remained unresponded. Resultantly the department rescinded the contract, forfeited the security in favour of the Government and handed over the work to another contractor in terms of the relevant provisions of the agreement. An amount of Rs,53,327 as costs of material obtained by the contractor from the Government store was also found outstanding against the contractor.
Accordingly, the notice in question was issued to the contractor which was challenged through Suit No,386/1 of 1985 in the Court of Civil Judge, Mansehra.
8. Having heard the learned counsel from both sides I find myself in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioners that an appellate judgment should state the points arising for determination, its decision thereon and the reasons for its decision. The appellate Court is required to give its decision with regard to each point which should be self-explanatory, illuminative and in the nature of a speaking order. The trial Court and the appellate Court are duty-bound to consider and discuss the evidence of both the parties satisfactorily so that it may be visible that the Courts below have applied their mind and that they have based their findings on proper appraisal of evidence on record. In the instant case I find that the appellate Court has not referred to the evidence of the parties and has disposed of the issues in a cursory and slip-shod manner. The judgment of the appellate Court, in the circumstances, is liable to-be reversed as the same is not in consonance with the requirements of Order 20, rule 5, C.P.C. Read with Order 41, rule 31 thereof.
Manzoor-ul-Haq and 3 others v. Mst. Kaneez Begum 1993 CLC 109, Muhammad Mustakeem through his legal heirs v. Abdul Haleem through his legal heirs 1992 CLC 435, Syed Hassan Shah v. Malook Shah and another 1987 CLC 2281, Mst. Salma Bibi v. Ali Sher and 2 others 1994 CLC 2189 and Mst.
Aisha v. Mst. Fatima and others 1991 CLC 1499.
9. In the result the revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Additional I. District Judge, Mansehra for re-hearing the appeal on merits according to law in the lights of the observations made above. For this purpose, the parties shall appear there on 12-11-2001. No order as to costs.