ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT AT LARKANA

Civil Revision Application No.S-74 of 2014

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1.For orders on office objections as flag A.

2.For orders on C.M.A No.  33 of 2017.

            3.For  hearing of C.M.A No.275 of 2014.

4.For hearing of main case.       

19.11.2018.

Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, Advocate for the applicants.

                        Mr. Syed Lal Shah, Advocate for private respondent.

                        Ms. Nisho Fatima, State Counsel.

                                                ……………………

                        The applicants by way of instant Civil Revision application have impugned judgment and decree dated 30.08.2014 and 02.09.2014, passed by learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Dadu, in Civil Appeal No.13/2014, Re.Ishrat Parvez Vs. Daim and others, the operative part whereof reads as below;

“In view of my discussion on the foregoing issues, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2013 is hereby set aside and consequently suit No.58/2009 is decreed as prayed with no orders as to costs. The Nazir of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, K.N.Shah is appointed as commissioner, to assess the mesne profits of the suit land of last three years and future mesne profits till the possession is handed over to the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff is directed to deposit tentatively Rs.2,000/- before the learned trial Court as commissioner fees.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the learned Appellate Court has not framed point for determination necessary for decision of an appeal. By contending so, he sought for remand of the matter to learned Appellate Court for fresh decision on appeal in accordance with law. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Akhtar Hussain Vs. Muhammad Aslam (2007 YLR-2220).

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the private respondent that the failure on part of the learned Appellate Court to frame points for determination is not fatal which may justify remand of the matter to learned Appellate Court, as according to him, on every issue the finding has been recorded by learned Appellate Court. By contending so, he sought for dismissal of the instant civil revision application.

                        Learned State Counsel did not support the judgment of learned Appellate Court, as according to her, it is not containing the points for determination, being essential at law. By contending so, she supported the contention of learned counsel for the applicants for remand of the matter.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

Order 41 rule 31 CPC reads as under;

R.31. Contents, date and signature of judgment.-- The judgment of the Appellate court shall be in writing and shall state--

                        (a) the points for determination

                        (b) the decision thereon

                        (c) the reasons for the decision; and,

(d) …….

                        The bare perusal of above provision of law would reveal that the judgment of appellate Court shall contain point for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. In the instant matter, admittedly no point for determination has been framed by learned Appellate Court. What to talk of decision thereon with the reasons. Such failure on the part of learned Appellate Court has rendered its judgment in appeal to be not sustainable at law, it is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded to learned Appellate Court with direction to decide the same afresh, preferably within 60 days hereinafter, after providing chance of hearing to all the concerned.

                        The instant civil revision application is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

J U D G E

--