2001 PLP 641 (MLD)

This order shall decide C.R. Nos.2677 of 2000, 2678 of 2000 and 2679 of 2000 as they proceed against a common judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Kamalia.

2. Some suits interpartes were pending when on a statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, two of the pre‑emption suits wherein the respondents were defendants, were decreed while one suit where the respondents were claiming a, declaration as to their title in the suit land, was dismissed. These of course were questioned by the respondents by filing applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. The primary allegation was that their learned counsel had colluded with the opposite party and keeping them in dark about the progress of the cases had proceeded to get adverse decision. The applications were dismissed by the learned trial Court summarily vide order, dated 23‑6‑1998. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed appeals which came up before the learned Additional District Judge, Kamalia who proceeded to allow the appeals and to remand back the cases for fresh trial vide impugned orders, dated 12‑10‑2000 as the learned Additional District Judge was of the opinion that the allegations of the respondents could not have been adjudged without framing of issues and recording of evidence.

3. Learned counsel with reference to the cases of "Mrs. Amina Bibi through General Attorney v. Nasrullah and others" (2000 SCMR 296) and "Amiran Bibi and others v. Muhammad Ramzan and others" (1999 SCMR 1334) argues that it was the discretion of the learned trial Court to determine as to whether or not a trial is required and since the learned trial court had not felt the need for framing issues and recording of evidence, the learned Additional District Judge should not have interfered. Further contends that one of the defendants in the original suits had not challenged the decree and had died prior to the institution of the suits.

4. I have examined the copies of the records appended with these Civil Revisions. I have been taken through the applications that had been filed by the respondents. I find that it has been specifically alleged that the learned counsel had colluded with the opposite party and fraudulently got the suits decided against the respondents and that they were kept in dark about the date of hearing and that they had neither authorised the counsel nor he had consulted them before the decision of the applications. So far as the said defendant/respondent is concerned who had not questioned the decree, it was mentioned in the applications that he had sold away his land through a mutation separately and as such has not joined the respondents in the applications.

5. After examining the records, I find myself in agreement with the learned Additional District Judge that this matter could not have been decided without framing of issues and recording of evidence. In similar circumstances, where allegations had been trade against the learned counsel representing the applicants under section 12(2), C.P.C. in the main suits, it was held in the case of "Abdur Razzaq v. Muhammad Islam and others" (1999 SCMR 1714) that such allegations could not have been decided without framing of issues and it was directed that the trial Court is to decide the matter after framing of issues and recording of evidence. Since the impugned order is in accord with the said judgment pronounced in similar circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to be interfered with in revisional Jurisdiction. All the Civil Revisions are dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./.M.A.K./S‑124/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.