Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Consolidation) MUHAMMAD and others VS Respondent: Mst. SATTAN and others
Court Name: Board of Revenue Judge(s): Mian Muhammad Akram Title: Consolidation) MUHAMMAD and others vs Mst. SATTAN and others Case No.: R.O.R. No, 1826 of 1992 Date of Judgment:1992-11-17 Reported As: 1993 MLD 1946 Result: Petition accepted
Judgment ORDER ' The petitioners have filed this revision petition under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the orders, dated 2-7-1992 and 13-8-1992 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Faisalabad Division whereby the revision of the petitioners was dismissed and the revision of the respondents was accepted respectively. Both the counsel of the respective parties who appeared for the first time, have during the course of arguments drawn my attention to the contents of the abovementioned impugned orders. From perusal, I find that these orders are not only casual and summary in nature, but also totally lack proper evaluation and assessment of the evidence adduced before the lower Court. In cases where valuable rights are involved and the parties after having availed the remedy of appeal in the lower Court have come to the next higher judicial forum, it is not only required but almost mandatory for the Presiding Officer to carefully examine the specific moot points and the nature of the dispute and then pass a speaking order specifically stating his findings in most unambiguous terms by giving full and detailed reasons and grounds for having come to that particular findings. In the impugned orders all this is missing. 2. Obviously in the light of this, both the orders cannot be sustained which are hereby set aside. The revision petition is remanded to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Faisalabad/Sargodha Divisions with the remarks that after giving full opportunity to both the parties, he should decide the case afresh according to the merit and law on the relevant point. 3. In the end, it is once again reiterated that it has to be appreciated that aggrieved parties necessarily take their case to the higher judicial forums with a clear conviction in mind and with the hope of getting unambiguous findings whether on law or on a question of fact which they think that the lower Court has not fully evaluated or has left unexplained. If this is missing in the
---
## Page 2
judgment, then it is most unfortunate. Therefore, it must be observed that in all matters whether relating to revenue, civil or criminal, if the judicial order is not a speaking one, then it is no order at all.