1994 PLP 1654 (MLD)

This petition in revision was against a decision of learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, dated 28-6-1992 by which an Issue No.1-A was added by him and the suit was remanded for its trial and decision afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity for adducing further evidence by the parties. Petitioners canvassed its correctness and also the propriety: Respondents defended it and argued that for sound reasons given in it, remand order was justified. There was no grievance about insufficiency of evidence on record for a final decision of the appeal from either side. Learned Additional District Judge also did not hint at it. Issues raised at the trial were comprehensive and covered the factual as well as legal controversial points for decision between the part's No objection was raised to the framing of and number of issues already settled in the suit. Therefore, an open remand for a de novo trial of the civil suit by condemning the whole exercise heretofore taken was not warranted law. Even if any deficiency was discovered to exist, it could have been met by taking more evidence either by the Court itself or by a Court subordinate to it for its benefit. Furthermore if there was a defect in existing issues, the Court was empowered under Rule 24 of Order XLI, C.P.C. to cure it and decide the dispute finally. Still further, if an important issue was omitted to be tried, it could have been raised in exercise of appellate jurisdiction and remitted to the trial Court for a finding on it under Rule 25 of Order XLI, C.P.C. All these courses were open to the lower appellate Court to adopt for avoiding an open remand for retrial of the suit by giving it a further lease of inordinate delay for its disposal. Unnecessary remands of cases of which the present was a typical example add not only to the delayed decision of the causes but also involved the parties into an unnecessary expense and wastage of their valuable time. The practice also hindered capacity of Courts to attend to more genuine causes. All that I intend to observe was that unless it was inevitable remand must be avoided by the Courts. In the above context, I was unable to uphold the order of remand for retrial of the civil suit afresh. Full consciousness of the procedural techniques and available rules in the C.P.C. on the subject of appeals could have assisted the learned Judge below to avoid the impugned course for final decision of the case by him. The Courts were already under a heavy burden of back-log of the cases. Therefore, effort must be made to minimise unnecessary rounds of litigation with a view for final decision of the causes at the appropriate levels, rather than making them a shuttlecock between the various Courts. Having regard to the aforesaid, civil revision is allowed; impugned order of the Court below is set aside and the case is remitted to the file of learned District Judge, Gujranwala for its hearing and decision afresh in accordance with law and the observations made above. Parties shall appear in his Court on 31-5-1994. M.BA./N-249/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.