TALIB HUSSAIN Versus BARKAT ALI

This judgment will dispose of two regular second appeals (R.S.A.210 of .1987 and R.SA. 51 of 1988) as one and the same judgment dated 11‑11‑1987 passed by learned Additional District Judge Narowal has been challenged in both these appeals.

2. These appeals arise out of a suit for declaration filed by Barkat Ali and others against Talib Hussain and others. The suit was partly decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16‑4‑1983 of the learned Civil Judge, Narowal. Both the parties challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court by filing two separate appeals. Both these appeals were. dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 11‑11‑1987. This led to the filing of these two appeals.

3. The main ground urged is that the impugned judgment and decree is no judgment in the eye of law as the learned first appellate Court has failed to apply its own independent mind and also has not recorded its own findings on the questions raised before it. In the impugned judgment, the learned first appellate Court, after giving the history of the case and noting the contentions of the ‑‑parties, disposed of the appeals with the following observations:‑

"I do not find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The evidence brought on record has been thoroughly discussed by the learned Civil Judge. The conclusion reached on legal and factual position is not suffering from any illegality, infirmity, mis reading or non‑reading of material evidence on record, hence, not liable to be reversed".

4. The disposal of the appeals in the aforesaid manner is in violation of Order 41 rule 31 C.P.C. The first appellate Court is required by law to record its own findings on the contentions raised before it after independent appraisal of the material on record. The disposal of appeal by making general observations is not warranted by law. In view of above, there is no alternative but to set aside the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree dated 11‑11‑1987 of the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal is hereby set aside with the result that appeals filed by the parties shall be deemed to be still pending and shall be disposed of afresh by the learned District Judge, Sialkot himself after hearing the parties who are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Sialkot on 25‑4‑1988. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Office is directed to send back the record immediately.

S.Q./T‑37/L Case remanded.