Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XLI, R.31 & S.115---Appellate Court could not run away from its onerous duties of recording the finding of fact and discussing the evidence---Where the Appellate Court, in its judgment neither had set out points for determination nor had recorded reasons for its decision, such judgment not being in accordance with the mandatory provisions of O.XLI, R.31, C.P.C. was set aside by High Court in exercise of ievisional jurisdiction and case was remanded for rehearing of appeal on merits according to law. K.B. Bhutto for Applicant. Abdul Rashid Mirza for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th May, 1990. JUDGMENT This is a civil revision petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 23-12-1982 passed by the V1Ilth Additional District Judge, Karachi, whereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Karachi. The facts leading to the filing of the above revision are that the first respondent filed suit for declaration, cancellation and injunction against the petitioner and the second respondent. The case of the first respondent as set out in the plaint was that the first respondent  had  acquired  the  ownership  and  possession  of  house  bearing No.K-19A-6-S-18/1, to 4 Bakra Pin, Lyari Quarters, Karachi, in the year 1964 from one Adam Khan son of Qasim. Khan and since then she is the owner of these plots with construction thereon. It is alleged that respondent No.l had let out the house in dispute to the petitioner as tenant and the petitioner applied for and obtained lease of the house in dispute in her favour from the second respondent by filing false affidavit and by misrepresentation. The petitioner contested the suit and denied the various allegations made against her. The second respondent also filed written statement and raised preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable and barred by provisions of section 88 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1972. The second respondent contested that the petitioner had applied for regularisation and grant of lease and produce all necessary documents in support of her…