Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Section: 31

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----O. XLI, R. 31--Scope--Contents, date and signature of judgment--Points for determination while deciding appeal--Divergent views on framing points for determination--Validity--There can be no cavil on proposition that purpose of framing points for determination is nothing but to ensure proper appraisal of material or legality of judgment, which cannot be expected in absence of points for determination--Appeal was continuity of lis where whole case becomes opens, therefore, mere use of phrase failure of pointing out an illegality would not serve purpose of Order XLI, Rule 31, CPC--If plea of Government was taken as true then that would be license for appellate Court to hold impugned judgment as legal or illegal only by mentioning that same was in accordance with law or not which, in no way could serve purpose and object of Order XLI, CPC rather it would frustrate whole scheme of legislature while putting such mandatory provisions of law in Court--Application was accepted. [P. 176] A, B & C Date of hearing: 2.12.2014. Order Through instant civil revision application, applicant has challenged the judgment dated 30.05.2012, recorded by IInd Additional District Judge, Sanghar in Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, whereby learned appellate Court maintained the judgment passed by trial Court in F.C. Suit No. 16/2005 (Re-Mst. Sarwat Bano v Province of Sindh and others). 2.  Succinctly, the facts of the case are that an agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 512/1 to 4; 513/1 to 4; 514/1 to 4; 515/1 to 4; 516/1 to 4, total area 59-35 acres, situated in Deh Samerjo, Taluka Khipro, District Sanghar originally belonged to one Mst. Sodhi, mother of Respondent/Defendant No. 6, who sold the same to the applicant/plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of oral statement recorded before Mukhtiarkar Khipro in presence of witness Haji Ghulam Mustafa on 22.05.1988, for which the applicant had paid such mutation fee to the Respondent No. 4; resultantly the suit land was mutated in the revenue record of rights in the name of applicant vide mutation Entry No. 112 in village form XV. The applicant received possession of the suit land at…