IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Civil Revision Appln.No.S-40 of 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Applicant                         :       Ahmed Ali son of Umed Ali Khoso

Through Mr. Riaz Hussain Khoso, Advocate

 

 

Respondents                  :       Through Mr.Rafique Ahmed Abro,

Advocate for private respondents,

               

                               

                                                Miss. Nisho Fatima, State Counsel

 

Date of hearing              :       20.12.2018          

Date of order                :        20.12.2018                   

 

O R D E R

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The applicant by way of instant Civil Revision Application has impugned judgment and decree dated 02.08.2016, passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jacobabad in Civil Appeal No.08/2014, whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2014, passed by learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, Jacobabad, in F.C.Suit No.26/2013, was maintained.

2.                The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant civil revision application are that the private respondent filed a suit before learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, for declaration and permanent injunction ascertaining therein that he is owner, being lessee, of the property bearing C.S.No.765, situated in Ward No.2, Jacobabad, consisting on 172.8 Square Yards. The plot was leased by Kachi Abadi department through registered lease deed No.141 dated 5.5.1994 and mutations were got affected in favour of the applicant in the record of city survey office, Jacobabad. The applicant constructed a shop/hotel where he cooks meal and there is an over (Tanoor). It is further asserted that behind his shop/hotel there is house of the private respondent, who about a year back asked the applicant to surrender a portion of the shop to him as a way to his house but he refused hence being annoyed the private respondent, with malafide intentions got constructed a latrine adjacent to Tanoor, in order to pressurize the applicant to surrender portion of his property for way to the private respondent, he started moving applications to the official respondents, who with malafide intentions started calling the applicant and pressurizing him to surrender a portion of his house for way to the house of the private respondent and also threatened to cancel his lease if their demand is not fulfilled. It was in these circumstances, the applicant filed the instant suit to declare him as legal and lawful owner of the property in suit and the private respondent has got no concern with the same and it also be declared that the actions take or intended to be taken by the private respondent, regarding the property in suit, is illegal and lawful.  It was decreed by learned trial Court. The appeal preferred against such decree by the applicant was dismissed by learned Appellate Court.    

3.                It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the points for determination framed by the learned Appellate Court are vague in its nature, the same are not containing the elaborate decision or reasons for such decision. By contending so, he sought for remand of the matter to learned Appellate Court for re-writing of the judgment. In support of his contention he relied upon cases of Allah Ditta and others Vs. Muhammad Sharif and others (2012 CLC-1274), 2). Moar through legal heirs Vs. Member Board of Revenue Sindh Hyderabad and others (2012 CLC-912) and 3) Mst.Resham through Attorney Vs. Province of Sindh through Secretary Board of Revenue and others (2014 YLR-2528).

4.                Learned State Counsel and learned counsel for the private respondent sought for dismissal of the instant civil revision application by contending that the judgment impugned is well reasoned. In support of their contention they relied upon case of Abdul Hakeem Vs. Habibullah and others (1997 SCMR-1139), and 2). Abdul Qayoom through legal heirs Vs. Musk-e-Alam and another (2001 SCMR-798).

5.                I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6.                As per requirement of Order 41 rule 31 CPC, every judgment has to contain the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. The term point for determination refers to all the important questions involved in the case. In the instant matter, the point for determination which are framed by learned Appellate Court reads as under;

“1.     Whether the impugned judgment and decree require interference?

 

2.       What should the judgment be?”

 

 

7.                The points for determination so framed by learned Appellate Court in the instant matter as referred above could hardly be said to be containing all the important questions, involved in the case. What to talk of considering the evidence on record as per requirement of Order 41 rule 31 CPC. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment could not be sustained and it is set-aside with direction to learned Appellate Court to re-write the judgment on appeal, by making compliance of Order 41 rule 31 CPC in letter and spirit, after providing chance of hearing to all the concerned.

8.                The instant Civil Revision Application stands disposed off in above terms with no order as to costs.

 

                                                                                          JUDGE

..