ANJUMAN TAJRAN, OUTSIDE DELHI GATE, LAHORE And 15 Others vs CHIEF

The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellants filed petition under section 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 before learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. The respondents filed written statement controverted the allegations levelled in the petition. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues framed:-----.

(1) Whether the petition is within time? O.P.P.

(2) Whether the petition is not maintainable? O.P.R.

(3) Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of parties? O.P.R.

(4) Whether the property in question was purchased and constructed by the petitioner and is not a Waqf property? O.P.P.

(5) Relief.

The petition was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 1-5-2000.

2. The appellant's counsel submits that learned Additional District Judge was not justified to dismiss the petition of appellant as time-barred, therefore, findings of the trial Court on Issue No. l is not sustainable in the eyes of law; that the learned Additional District Judge without discussing the evidence on record summarily decided Issues Nos.2 and 4 against appellant; that notification, dated 21-8-1997 relied by the learned Additional District Judge was not placed on record properly in accordance with the provisions of Civil Procedure Code.

3. Respondents' counsel submits that learned Additional District Judge decided the case in accordance with evidence, after proper appreciation of evidence; that it is not necessary to discuss the evidence on record by the trial Court in its judgment.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted fact that the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the petition of appellant without discussing the evidence on record, therefore, impugned judgment is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Order 20, Rule 5, C.P.C. The learned Additional District Judge did not discuss the evidence on record at all and did not decide the same in accordance with mandatory provisions of C.P.C. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned judgment of trial Court to resolve the controversy between the parties;----- "In the instant case, notification was published on 21-1-1977 whereas the present application was 12-12-1991 and was barred by time. Under Issue No-2 it is held that the petition is not maintainable in its present form. In view of findings on Issues Nos. l and 4 so far as Issue No.3 is concerned it is not proved for want of evidence by the respondent. Resultantly the petition fails and is dismissed with costs."

The aforesaid operative part of the impugned judgment reveals that the Court below has not applied his conscious mind to the relevant evidence and has not given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by him. It is well-settled .Principle of law that Court is oblige to consider the evidence present on record, judged its value in the light of legal principle applicable thereto and then pronounced its final opinion. It is the result of accumulative effect on the mind of the Court that finds expression in its final opinion. In the present case the learned trial Court did not discuss and considered evidence at all meaning thereby the judgment is result of surmises and conjunctures. The provisions of C.P.C. Are applicable while deciding the petition under section 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979.