GANGU AND ORS. Vs. LASSA ZARGAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, a preliminary objection is taken that the appeal is not properly presented. The appeal was initially presented in the office of the Revenue Commissioner. The office of the Revenue Commissioner at a later date transferred this appeal to the Deputy Registrar of the Court on the ground that the appeal was not within the cognizance of the Revenue Commissioner. Thereafter the appeal was listed in the High Court and came up for hearing before me.

(2.) THE respondents' learned Counsel has argued that the transfer of the appeal from the office of the Revenue Commissioner to this Court is not a proper presentation of appeal, as the Revenue Commissioner was not an authorized agent of the appellant. In support of this argument, he has referred to -'Mahomed Qamar Shah v. Mahomed Salamat Ali', : AIR 1930 All 112 (A) in which it has been held that:

(3.) COMING to the merits of the case, I find that the Collector has passed a very brief order. He has not at all stated the grounds as to how... Section 58 -A of the Tenancy Act is applicable to the facts of this case. Merely writing in his order "that Section 58 -A of the Tenancy Act is a bar to the present execution", is not enough. In appealable cases it is always desirable that the Court should pronounce its opinion on all the important points involved in the case. The trial Court should have given a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, and its decision thereon, and also the reason for such decision. This it has not done, and as such I set aside the order of the trial court and remit the case to it with the direction that it should apply its mind to the facts of the case and record its judgment according to law in the light of above observations.