IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

 

Civil Revision Appln.No.S-28 of 2016

 

 

Applicants                         :     The Secretary Works and Service Department and others through

                                                Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional Advocate General.

 

 

Respondent                     :      Amanullah Buriro through

Mr.Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate

                                            

Date of hearing              :       26.11.2018          

Date of order                :        26.11.2018                   

 

O R D E R

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The applicants by way of instant Civil Revision Application have impugned judgment dated 12.04.2016 and decree dated 16.04.2016, passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jacobabad, whereby the 1st Civil Appeal No.13/2015 Re. Secretary Work and Services and others Vs. Amanullah Buriro and others filed by the applicants was dismissed. By recording such dismissal of the appeal of applicants, the judgment dated 18.11.2015 and decree dated 23.11.2015, passed by learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, Jacobabad, in F.C.Suit No.01/2014, (old) and F.C.Suit No.59/2014 (New)                       Re: Amanullah Vs. Secretary Works and Service Department and others, was maintained.

2.                The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant civil revision application are that the private respondent filed a suit against the applicants before learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, Jacobabad, for recovery of money with the pleadings that he being contactor was awarded the contract by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Roads Department Shikarpur, for construction of one mile lay down road Sanheri Sarak via Noor Wah, Taluka Thull. Such work, he completed and was paid some amount on that account, yet an amount of Rs.30,64,374/- remained outstanding against the applicants. The private respondent in order to recover above said amount filed a suit for recovery against the applicants. It was decreed by learned trial Court. The appeal preferred against such decree was dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 12.04.2016, the operative part whereof reads as under;

“The awarding of contract and outstanding amount of suit amount are admitted, however, it is stated by the appellant that the respondent failed to complete the construction work. The record shows that no any document is produced by the appellant no produced any notice allegedly served upon the respondent to prove that the respondent had failed to complete the construction work. Since, the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent failed to complete the construction work, therefore, in the circumstances, the respondent is entitled for recovery of the suit amount, I therefore, hold that the learned trial court passed impugned judgment and decree legally and require no any interference of this Court”.

         

3.                It is contended by learned Additional Advocate General for the applicants 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 case of Nasir Abbas Vs. Manzoor Hyder Shah (PLD 1989 SC-568).

4.                Learned counsel for the private respondent sought for dismissal of the instant civil revision application by contending that the judgment impugned is well reasoned.

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