P L D 1994 Lahore 259 (PLP)

Facts of the case lie within a short compass and point of law raised on them was not much intricate too. Relevant facts giving rise to the petition in revision briefly put were:‑‑Bashir Ahmad owned 100 Kanals of land in Mauza Jamke Dhindsa, Tehsil Pasrur, District Sialkot. On i8‑7‑1963, he sold it to respondents Nos.l to.8 through a registered deed for a consideration specified in it. His son Rehmat Ali as plaintiff sued for annulment of the sale under Custom on the ground that it was not supported by consideration and was not backed by legal necessity also. Vendees, resisted the suit. The suit was decreed on 25‑6‑1975, by tie trial Court upon holding that subject to existing mortgage on the land, sale shall not affect reversionary rights of the plaintiff after the demise of vendor: Vendees‑defendants Nos.1 to 8. in the suit preferred an appeal from the judgment and decree of the trial Court to learned District Judge at Sialkot. Appeal was herd by learned Additional, District Judge of the District who on 5‑12‑1983 applied section 2‑A of ,Punjab Ordinance XIII of 1983 to the case and allowed the appeal with the consequence ;that the suit was declared to have abated forthwith. Aggrieved of the decision by, the court below the plaintiff came up in revision to this Court. His case was that since lie and his father Bashir Ahmad professed Ahmadi faith and were declared non‑Muslims by Article 260 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Enactment relied upon in the lower Court did not bind them and, therefore, the appeal required its decision on merits in accordance with law governing the parties. Civil revision was admitted to hearing for examination of this legal point. It was an agreed legal premise that Ahmadis were declared non-Muslims in Pakistan by Article 260(3) of the Constitution of 1973. In' Muhammad Arshad and others v. Government of Pakistan and others 1992 MLD 1147 (Lahore), Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, J. also subscribed to this view. It was also a common ground that Punjab Ordinance XIII of 1983 did not apply to, non‑Muslims. Therefore, the premises of the impugned decision were untenable. The first question requiring determination was about true faith of plaintiff and his father who had sold the land; whether they professed Ahmadi faith and if found to fall within that fold, the second question arising for decision would be the law governing their rights in the suit. Decision of the second question was clearly dependent upon the adjudication of first question which truly was a mixed question of fact and law. The assumption for application of Punjab Ordinance XIII of 1983 to the parties being made without proper inquiry into the faith of the plaintiff and his father, the appeal must necessarily go back to learned District Judge, Sialkot for its re‑decision on merits in accordance with law and the observations made above. Sufficient. material was not available here for decision of the faith of the plaintiff and his father. Therefore, the remand of the case was considered necessary on the above score. In the facts and circumstances of. the case, parties shall bear their own costs in this Court. Parties shall appear in the Court of learned District Judge, Sialkot on 22‑2‑1994. AA./R‑125/L Case remanded.