--Ss. 42, 54 & 55--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), O.XLI R. 31-- Suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction--Concurrent findings--Judgment of appellate Court--Points of determination--

 PLJ 2022 Lahore 322
Present: Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J.
DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY LAHORE through Secretary DHA and another--Appellants
versus
Mst. SHAUKAT ARA and another--Respondents
R.S.A. No. 248910 of 2018, decided on 18.1.2022.

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)--

----Ss. 42, 54 & 55--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), O.XLI R. 31-- Suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction--Concurrent findings--Judgment of appellate Court--Points of determination--Respondent No. 2 was arrayed as plaintiff in suit after 7 years from institution of suit--Challenge to--Judgment of Appellate Court shall state points of determination, decision thereon and reasons for decision--The Court is required to record important questions involved in case in light of respective contentions of parties and decide same after application of its independent judicious mind--The decision should be self-explanatory, illuminative and in nature of a speaking order--The Court should set forth evidence relied upon and its own conclusions supported by reasons--I have gone through impugned judgment, which does not reflect what led Appellate Court to affirm findings of trial Court have neither been adverted nor alluded to--Even no finding has been given on issue of limitation--The contentions of parties though mentioned in impugned judgment but it is not discernible as to whose arguments merited dismissal of appeal--Appeal allowed. [P. 324] A & B

1996 SCMR 669, 2016 CLC 1258, 2017 YLR Note 253, 2021 CLC 1609 & 2021 CLC 1647 ref.

M/s. Tariq Masood and Hassan Tariq, Advocates for Appellants.

Mian Umer Farooq, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 18.1.2022.

Order

This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 10.08.2018, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby appellants’ appeal against judgment and decree dated 31.07.2013, passed by learned Civil Judge, Lahore, decreeing the suit filed in favour of Respondent No. 2, was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents filed a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunctions against appellants regarding suit property detailed in para 1 of the amended plaint. The suit was contested by the latter by filing written statement. After framing issues, recording evidence and hearing arguments from both sides, learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of Respondent
No. 2 declaring him lawful owner of the suit property, directed to put him into the actual possession of the suit property, appellants were directed not to interfere into possession of Respondent No. 2 over the suit property illegally and without due course of law and registered sale-deed in favour of appellants was cancelled and set aside, vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2013. Feeling aggrieved, appellants filed appeal before learned Additional District Judge, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.08.2018. Hence, instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the suit was barred by time but no findings was given by learned Appellate Court on this pivotal aspect of the matter. Adds that even otherwise, Respondent No. 2 was arrayed as plaintiff in the suit after about 07-years from institution of the suit. Further submits that learned Appellate Court has not given issue wise findings while deciding the appeal, hence, impugned judgment and decree is unsustainable in the eye of law. In support, he has placed reliance upon Syed Iftikhar-ud-Din Haider Gardezi and. 9 others v. Central Bank of India Ltd., Lahore and 2 others (1996 SCMR 669) and Pakistan Refinery Ltd., Karachi v. Barrett Hodgson Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and others (2019 SCMR 1726).

4. Conversely, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that issue wise findings were not necessary to be delivered as learned Appellate Court, after appreciating the available evidence and record, was inclined to confirm the judgment and decree of learned trial Court.

5. Arguments heard. Available record perused.

6. Order XLI Rule 31 C.P.C. provides that judgment of the Appellate Court shall state the points of determination, the decision thereon and reasons for the decision. The Court is required to record the important questions involved in the case in the light of respective contentions of the parties and decide the same after application of its independent judicious mind. The decision should be self-explanatory, illuminative and in the nature of a speaking order. The Court should set forth the evidence relied upon and its own conclusions supported by reasons. The rationale behind said provisions is that not only the party losing the case but the next higher forum may also understand what weighed with the Court in deciding the lis against it. Such exercise cannot be dispensed with even in the case of affirmative judgment otherwise it will not be known whether arguments addressed were accepted or rejected with due application of mind. I have gone through the impugned judgment, which does not reflect what led learned Appellate Court to affirm the findings of learned trial Court have neither been adverted nor alluded to. Even no finding has been given on issue of limitation. The contentions of the parties though mentioned in the impugned judgment but it is not discernible as to whose arguments merited dismissal of the appeal. In these circumstances, impugned appellate judgment is unsustainable in the eye of law. Reference can be made to Syed Iftikhar-ud-Din Haiar Gardezi and 9 others v. Central Bank of India Ltd., Lahore and 2 others (1996 SCMR 669), Muhammad Yousaf v. Mehmood and 2 others (2016 CLC 1258), Muhammad Ibraheem v. Mst. Sultan and 11 others (2017 YLR Note 253), Saeed Ullah Khan v. Muhammad Khalid and
3 others (2018 CLC 648), Mst. Hajul through L.Rs. and others v. Nasrullah Malik and others (2018 CLC 1564), Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad and 2 others v. Wadero Lal Bux (2021 CLC 1609) and Niamatullah and 2 others v. Essa Khan and 9 others (2021 CLC 1647).

7. In view of the above, instant appeal is allowed and impugned appellate judgment and decree dated 10.08.2018 is set-aside. Consequently,’ appellants’ appeal shall be deemed to be pending before learned lower Appellate Court, which shall be decided afresh, strictly in accordance with law, after hearing the parties, through a well-reasoned speaking decision, preferably within a period of thirty days from the first date of hearing before learned Court below. The parties are directed to appear before the Court on 02.02.2022. Office shall transmit copy of this order to the Court concerned immediately.

(Y.A.)  Appeal allowed