MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.-- Through this Civil Revision the applicant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 7.4.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghotki in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1993, rejecting the appeal filed by the applicant against the judgment dated 26.5.1993 and decree dated 29.5.1993 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ghotki in Suit No. 239 of 1978.
2. The precise facts, inter alia as stated in the Revision Application, are that an agricultural land admeasuring 8 acres from U.A, No. 219 of Deh Changlani, Taluka Ghotki District Ghotki was granted to respondent No. 5 Ali Sher by the Deputy Colonization Officer, Guddu Barrage, -left Bank Ghotki, on 19.10.1973. It was alleged by respondent No. 5 that during the same Katchery many other persons were granted land from same U.A. No. 219 on Harap tenure. The applicant had also applied for grant of disputed piece of land measuring 8 acres during the same Katchary on the basis of P.K.M. Right but his application was turned down on the ground that he did not raise objection to the grant in favour of respondent No. 5 and further he did not have preferential right over the grant of suit land in comparison to respondent No. 5/plaintiff.
The applicant challenged the said order of grant in Appeal No. SRO A. 4305/1973-74 before the Additional Commissioner, Sukkur Division Sukkur (respondent No. 3) who cancelled the grant vide his order dated 1.2.1978 and granted the disputed land in favour of the applicant on the ground that the applicant's father namely Ilyas and thereafter his brother had P.K.M. Right over the disputed piece of land and the same land is in cultivating possession of the applicant and further held in his order that the Respondent No. 5/Plaintiff has to right for the grant of disputed land. Against the order of Additional Commissioner, ukkur Division, Sukkur Respondent No. 5 Ali- Sher filed an appeal efore Respondent No. 2 (Member Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderabad) who maintained the order dated 1.2.1978 passed by the Additional Commissioner Sukkur and dismissed the appeal on merits. Respondent No. 5 thereafter filed a Civil Suit being Suit No. 239 of 1978 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge Ghotki seeking the following reliefs:--
(a) That this Honourable Court will be pleased to declare that the orders passed by Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are -in violation of the mandatory provision of Land Grant Policy framed by Government of Sindh vide Notification No. KBI/1/30/72/79/7784, dated 20/21.11.1972 and therefore illegal and not maintainable in law.
(b) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to declare that the plaintiff is landless had of Deh Changlaniand, D therefore, rightly granted the suit land by the Deputy Colonization Officer, Guddu Barrage, Ghotki and the, order of grant in favour of plaintiff was not liable to be disturbed.
(c) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to declare that the orders passed by the Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are ma/a fide capricious, arbitrary and unlawful ' and, therefore, unenforceable against the plaintiff.
(d) That permanent injunction be issued against defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 restraining them from interfering with the title and possession of the plaintiff or from complementing or executing the impugned orders passed by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever.
(e) Costs of the suit be borne by the defendants Nos. 2 to 4.
(f) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded.
Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 did not contest the suit and as such were declared ex-parte, while defendants No. 4, applicant herein, submitted his written-statement and contested the suit and raised legal objections about maintainability as well as jurisdiction of the Court of Senior Civil Judge. On the pleadings of the, parties, sib issues were framed, as under:-
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable under the law?
(2) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of suit land in preference to defendant No. 4?
(4) Whether the orders passed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are illegal, ultravires and void, ab initio?
(5) Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file this suit.
(6) What should the decree be?
Both the parties led their evidence and ultimately the suit was decreed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Ghotki vide judgment dated 26.5.1993 and decree dated 29.5.1993. The applicant/defendant No. 4 therefore preferred an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge Sukkur but due to creation of Ghotki District the appeal was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge Ghotki who dismissed the said appeal vide his judgment dated 4.7.1996 without giving findings on each and every issue separately. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Application has been filed by the applicant.
3. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Abdul Fateh Malik, learned counsel appearing on behalf the applicant, Mr. Mumtaz Ali Siddiqui, Advocate and Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar, learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mirani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of legal heirs of Respondent No. 5, Ali Sher.
4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the judgments and decrees passed by the Senior Civil Judge Ghotki and the learned Additional District Judge Ghotki, respectively, are in excess of their jurisdiction and as such are ultra vices, null and void. The learned Senior Civil Judge Ghotki has erroneously held that the order dated 14.4.1977 passed by Additional Commissioner Sukkur in case No. SRO.A-4331 of 1973-74 is binding on Defendant No. 5/applicant. In fact the applicant had filed his appeal No. SRO 4305 of 1973-74 against illegal order of the DCO and it was already pending and filed prior to said appeal No. SRO.A-4331 of 1973-74 in which the applicant was not made party. It has further been contended by the learned counsel. For the applicant that the learned Senior Civil Judge has failed to consider that the .Case No. SRO A-4305 1973-74 filed by the applicant against Respondents before the Additional Commissioner Sukkur was prior to case No. SRO A-4331 of 197374 filed. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned two Courts below have failed to consider that the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 5 had suppressed the facts before the Additional Commissioner and Member Board of Revenue about the institution of appeal which was filed earlier by the applicant against in respect of same disputed land before the Additional Commissioner Sukkur even at the time of hearing of his appeal as it was heard and decided on 14.4.1977 by the Additional Commissioner Sukkur in absence of applicant who was not party to the case as such the order dated, 14.4.1977 was .Neither within the knowledge of the applicant nor binding upon him. It is also contended that the learned Senior Civil Judge has wrongly held in his judgment that the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 5 is in cultivating possession of suit land though this fact is determined by the Revenue Appellate Court viz. Additional Commissioner Sukkur and Member Board of Revenue Hyderabad in their orders/judgments that the applicant and his father late Ilyas are in cultivating possession of disputed land and further recognized the P.K.M. Rights of the applicant over the same disputed land after scrutinizing the revenue record in presence of both the parties. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of the facts given by the respondents Nos. '2 and 3 in favour of the applicant. He was not competent to sit over the judgments/orders of the Revenue Courts as an Appellate Authority over the findings of the facts given by them. The learned Senior Civil Judge has wrongly held that the orders passed by Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are illegal. In fact the Respondent No. 3 is the highest appellate Revenue Court and Respondent No. 2 is the appellate authority hence both Courts have legally and rightly exercised their jurisdiction and powers vested in them. The learned counsel has further contended that the learned Senior Civil Judge Ghotki as well as the learned Additional District Judge Ghotki have decided all The issues together without giving findings on each and every issue, separately, enunciated under Order XX, Rule 5, CPC. The Order XX, Rule 5, CPC is reproduced as under:-- Rule 5 of Order XX, CPC. Courts to state its decision on each issue:- In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, which the reasons therefore, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit.
It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that during the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1993 applicant made an application under Order XIII, Rule 2 read. With section 151, CPC and produced the original certificate dated 10.9.1995 issued by the Assistant Colonization Officer Guddu, Barrage Ghotki regarding the payment of entire instalments made by the applicant with regard to disputed land. The applicant had also produced the true copies of Form A' issued in favour of applicant showing full ,instalments paid to the Government. The learned Additional - District Judge Ghtki failed to decide the said important documents prodused by the applicant.
Lastly, the learned counsel has submitted that an application was filed before the learned Additional District Judge Ghotki for recording additional evidence which has also been left undecided by him. The learned counsel -has relied upon the case of Ali Muhammad vs. Muhammad Hayat and others (1982 S.C.M.R. 816) and Muhammad Hayat and others vs .
Muhammad and others (N.L.R. 1982 CLJ 271). In this background the learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the case be remanded back to the learned Additional District Judge Ghotki to decide the appeal afresh taking into consideration the points raised by him.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 has conceded to the above position and state no objection if the case is remanded back to be decided afresh.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of legal heirs of Respondent No. 5 has opposed to the remand of the case to the Appellate Court to be decided afresh. The learned counsel has contended that only Trial Judge has to decide the case issue-were and the Order XX, Rule 5, CPC only governs the suit by the Trial Court not the appeal by the Appellate Court, the decision of Trial Court while deciding the issue separately or conjointly. He submits that it has also been held in the same Rule that unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit. So far the decision of appeal is concerned which is governed by Order 41, Rule, 31 CPC, it does not show the framing of issues by the Appellate Court. The learned counsel has relied upon the case of Muhammad Hafeez vs. Jalaluddin and others (PLJ 1982 SC 49), Khawaja Muhammad Akbar vs. Khawaja Fateh Muhammad (1 993 MLKD-D 76), Bashir Ahmed vs. Ghulam Hyder (1991 M LD 360), Mian Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 180) and Anwar Hussain vs. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Larkana (1983 CLC 8511.
7. I have gone through the evidence and the judgments and decrees passed by the learned two Courts below.
8. The Trial Court while deciding the suit had framed six issues that has not extended reasons separately on all issues and decreed the suit. While deciding the appeal by the learned District Judge Ghotki has also not decided the appeal issue-were and therefore the two Courts below had disregarded mandatory provision of Order XX, Rule 5., C.P.C. And Order 41, Rule 31, C.P.C. Have acted in exercise of their jurisdiction with material irregularity and the case cited by the learned counsel for the applicant (1982 SCM R 816) is relevant in the present circumstances of the case. The operative part of the said dictum laid down by the apex Court is reproduced below:-- "Attention in this connection was drawn to the provisions of Order XX, rule 5 of CPC which provide that "in suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its findings or decision, which the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon by one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit and it was observed that the Trial Judge was bound to give reasons for his decision on each separate issue and the disposal of the issues Nos. 1-5 by simply observing that all these issues have no substantive force in view of findings given under issue No. 6 was not a proper decision in accordance with law. He, therefore, accepted the revision petition, set aside the impugned judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and that of the learned Additional District Judge and remanded the cases to the Trial Court for re-writing the judgment after hearing the parties with the direction that the Trial Court should decide the case within two months. This petition for leave to appeal directed against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.
We do not agree. The learned Trial Court had disregarded the mandatory provisions of Order XX, rule 5, CPC and therefore had acted in exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity. The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was competent to make such order as in the case as it through it."
9. In view of the requirements of Order XX, Rule 5, CPC, it is very much clear that in the instant case the learned Appellate Court has not given reasons for its decision on each separate issue framed by the Trial Court and therefore the observation of the Appellant Court has no force in view of the rule laid down by the law and from the perusal of judgments and decrees it extends an impression that the learned two Courts below and only observed formality inasmuch as they have not fully applied their mind and it is well-settled principle of law that the characteristic of a good judgment is that it must be self-evident and self-explanatory, in order of word it much contain reasons that justify conclusions arrived at and these reason should be such that a dis-interested. Reader can find them convincing or at least reasonable.
10. The grounds urged by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and' the case-law relied by him have no relevance at this stage when the Appellate Court.- as well as learned Senior Civil Judge had disregarded the mandatory provisions of Order XX, Rule 5, CPC. Apart from this, the learned Appellate Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction in not complying with Order 41, R. 31, C.P.C.
As in the impugned judgement it has not been stated points for determination, decision thereon, the reasons for findings. Hence it is not a judgment according to law.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this Revision Application is accepted and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge, Ghotki for hearing the partie,5,,. afresh and decide the case in accordance with law within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. The learned. Appellate Court is directed to re-write the judgment after due hearing the concerned parties. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge Ghotki on 29.9.2001 . And no fresh notice will be issued by the Appellate Court. .