ME H RB A N vs HAMID KHAN
This revision petition challenges the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, dated 25-10-1980, which affirmed the trial court's finding that the petitioner was not a tenant of the disputed land in a pre-emption matter. The core legal question is whether the first appellate court discharged its legal duty in re-assessing evidence and providing independent reasons under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court held that the lower appellate court adopted a perfunctory approach by failing to examine, weigh, or discuss the evidence or the trial court's reasons, merely affirming the findings summarily. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the District Judge, Sargodha, for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that the first appellate court must independently re-assess the evidence, examine the trial court's findings, and give reasoned conclusions rather than disposing of the appeal perfunctorily.
- Does the first appellate court have a duty to re-assess the evidence and give independent reasons when upholding a trial court's findings?
- Can an appellate judgment that merely affirms the trial court without discussing the evidence or reasons be sustained?
- What is the proper course of action when the first appellate court fails to follow the method of writing a judgment prescribed under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Order XLI Rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
' This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha dated 25-10-1980. One of the issues was whether the petitioner was a tenant of the land in dispute. It was found against him by the learned trial Court. On his appeal the learned Additional District Judge observed that "the appellant's contention is that he had superior right of pre- emption being a tenant over the disputed land. The evidence produced by the appellant/defendant No. 1 was rightly disbelieved. The judgment is self-speaking. The learned Civil Judge, has given reasons in support of his findings. The findings of the learned Civil Judge, on issue No. 1 require no interference and the same is hereby affirmed."
2. The learned first appellate Court has not referred to the evidence at all much less judged it. It is the duty of the first appellate Court to re-assess the evidence of the parties, examine the findings recorded by the trial Court and to give reasons for upholding or reversing the same. The method to write a judgment is given in the basic book dealing with civil litigation (C.P.C.
0. XLI, r. 31). The quotation from the judgement of the lower appellate Court would show that it has not examined the evidence and has observed that it "was rightly disbelieved" by the learned trial Court. How it was rightly disbelieved, he does not mention. Then it observed that the "learned Civil Judge, has given reasons in support of his findings." What were the reasons given by the learned Civil Judge? He does not refer to much less he weighs them. The judgment shows perfunctory approach to the duty which involves adjudication of rights of people calling for more care B and understanding.
3. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained at all. It is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned District Judge, Sargodha for fresh decision in accordance with law. In the
Cited by 8 cases
- MUHAMMAD AMEER and others vs Mst. FAJJAN and others 2012 CLC 1663
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM and '4 others vs SURKHARU KHAN 2007 CLC 765
- Muhammad Aslam and 4 others vs Surkharu Khan 2007 C.L.R. 1220
- ABDUR RAZZAQ vs SABAR KHAN 2004 CLC 950
- ALI RAZIQ vs SABAR KHAN 2003 CLC 1342
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs SUBA And 6 Others 2003 YLR 1126
- ASLAM RAZA vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ 2001 CLC 730
- WALAYAT BEGUM and others vs WAZIR BEGUM and others 1992 CLC 553