The petitioners through the instant petition have questioned the judgment and decree dated 5-4- 2000 of the learned Zila Qazi Dir at Timargara whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and thus upheld the judgment and decree of the learned Illaqa Qazi dated 8-10-1999.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners by referring to the judgment of the learned Appellate Court contended that the issues have not been properly framed and that the learned Judge has disposed of the lis before him in summary, hasty and of hand manner without independent application of mind. The learned counsel by relying on the case of Gouranga Mohan Sikdar v. The Controller of Import and Export and 2 others (PLD 1970 SC 158), Mollah Ejahar Ali v.
Government of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1970 SC 173) and the case of Abdul Qadir v. The Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lyallpur and 2 others (PLD 1975 Lah. 44) contended that the disposal of cases in a summary manner without giving reasons or resolving the points of controversy alone will constitute a ground for the remand of the case.
3. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent by controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is irony that precision in judgment is construed as deficiency of content and the worst of it is that it is characterized as hasty and of hand decision. The learned counsel by relying on the case of Haji Sultan Ahmad through Legal Heirs v. Naeem Raza and 6 others (1996 SCM R 1729) next contended that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C., even though erroneous unless such findings have been arrived at by misreading or non-reading of evidence or perverse appreciation thereof.
4. I have gone through the record and carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. A perusal of the evidence on the record would reveal that it was quite a lengthy case and a good number of witnesses had been examined by both the sides. The conclusion drawn by the learned Zila Qazi may have been based on proper appraisal of evidence but a perusal of his judgment shows that he perhaps thought to record only the conclusion without recording reasons enabling him to arrive thereat. The learned Judge seized of the matter was required under Order XLI, Rule 31 of the C.P.C. To state the points of determination; decision thereon and the reasons therefore to enable the party on one hand and the next higher forum on the other to know how and why the lis before him was decided in favour of one side or the other. This compliance should not be formal but substantial and sufficient by all means. It should be evident from the judgment that the Judge was conscious of the controversy involved and that the decision has been made on the basis of the record with independent application of mind. In the case of Gouranga Mohan Sikdar v. The Controller of Import and Export and 2 others (supra) it was held that the litigants who bring their dispute to the law Courts with incidental hardships and expenses do expect a patient and a judicious treatment of their cases and their determination by proper order. Similarly in the case of Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others (ibid) it was held that a judicial order must be a speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court has applied its mind to the resolution of the issues involved for their proper adjudication. The ultimate result may be reached by a laborious effort but if final order does not bear the imprint but on the contrary shows arbitrariness of thought and action and the feeling that justice has neither been done nor seems to have been done will be thus inescapable. Similar views were expressed in the case of Abdul Qadir v. The Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lyallpur and 2 others (supra). In the case of Mahabir Prasad v. The State of U.P. AIR 1970 SC 1302 at p.1304 almost similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court of India even with regard to the judgment of an authority exercising quasi-judicial power which may be reproduced as under:-- "Opportunity to a party interested in the dispute to present his case on question of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts from materials before the Tribunal after disclosing the materials to the party against whom it is intended to use them, and adjudication by a reasoned judgment upon a finding of the facts in controversy and application of the law to the facts found, are attributes of even a quasi judicial determination. It must appear not merely that the authority entrusted with quasi-judicial authority has reached a conclusion on the problem before him, it must appear that he has reached a conclusion which is according to law and just, and for ensuring that end he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. Satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by most cogent reasons that appeal to the authority. Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on the grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater for without recorded reasons, the Appellate Authority has no material on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just."
6. Where the most coveted achievement nay the destination in the process of administration of justice is that justice should nor only be done but to be manifestly seen to be done, a speaking, rather than a cursory and a groundless, order is imperative indeed indispensable, more so when in view of section 24-A(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, even executive authority, leaving aside the one exercising judicial power, while passing an order under the provisions of any enactment, is required to record reasons therefore.
7. Since the judgment of the learned Zila Qazi appears to be perfunctory on the face of it and the resolution of the issues involved with independent application of mind is conspicuously absent, I do not think that it can give an impression to the party losing the case that his case was decided fairly, justly and in accordance with law.
8. As far as the second limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, that seems to be without substance as the issues already framed by the trial Court are comprehensive enough to cover the entire gamut of controversy.
9. The argument addressed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below even though erroneous cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court, is undoubtedly valid and a tenable argument but as discussed above, since the learned Appellate Court which being first Court of appeal and the final Court of fact has not given any finding at all, in my view the judgment referred to by the learned counsel has no application to the instant case.
10. For the reasons discussed above, I allow this petition, set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case to the learned Zila Qazi for decision afresh in accordance with law after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard. As it is an old case, let it be decided within one month. The parties are directed to appear in the Court of Zila Qazi on 10-2-2003.