1988L256 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 10th June, 1987. This revision petition by Suleman is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, dated 4th of April, 1984 whereby the appeal filed by him from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chunian on 6th January, 1981 dismissing his suit was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

2. The petitioner was owner of land measuring 176 kanals and 18 marlas situate in village Nainewal Khalsa, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur. On 1st of January, 1967 a sale deed was registered by which the petitioner transferred land measuring 173 kanals and 6 marlas out of the above land to the respondents. On 1st of April, 1967 mutation of sale No. 992 was also sanctioned on the basis of the sale‑deed. On 23rd of July, 1974 the petitioner instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale‑deed and the mutation and also for possession of land measuring 173 kanals and 6 marlas. His case was that he had in fact sold land measuring 172 kanals and 14 marlas only whereas the respondents fraudulently incorporated in the sale deed that they had purchased land measuring 173 kanals and 6 marlas. He further alleged that he had sold no land from khewat No.250 but the same was shown to have been sold to respondents No.l and

2. According to him the sale was void ab initio as it was violative of the provisions of M.L.R. 64.

3. The respondents resisted the suit controverting the allegations of the petitioner and raising certain legal objections.

4. The trial Court on the basis of the averments, in the pleadings filed by the parties framed as many as twelve issues. The parties adduced their evidence for and against the issues. After appraising the evidence the trial Court found most of the issues in favour of the respondents and consequently dismissed the suit of the petitioner.

5. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal which was heard by the Additional District Judge, Kasur. He discussed issue No.l only which was as to whether the impugned sale was void for the reasons stated in para 3 of the plaint and concurring with the finding given thereon by the trial Court dismissed the appeal. He observed that no other issue was pressed into service.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the findings of the trial Court on other issues also were assailed in the grounds of appeal and challenged by the counsel for the petitioner in his arguments in the lover appellate Court. In support of this contention an affidavit of Mr. K.T. Hussain, Advocate, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur who was counsel for the petitioner in the lower appellate Court has been filed. He has affirmed that he had not dropped any ground of appeal during the hearing and the ground touching the violation of M.L.R. was argued more vigorously. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court may be set aside and the appeal remanded for its decision on all the issues in controversy. Learned counsel for the respondents also feels that the learned lower appellate Court should have adjudicated upon all the issues and should not have confined itself to only one issue. He, therefore, does not seriously object to the remand of the appeal.

7. Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted, the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur dated 4th of April, 1984 are set aside and the appeal remanded for a E decision afresh in accordance with law after adjudicating upon all the issues in controversy. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

8. At this stage learned counsel for the respondents has prayed that a direction may be given to the learned appellate Court to decide the appeal expeditiously. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection. The appellate Court shall decide the appeal within six months. H . B . T . /S‑163 / L Revision petition accepted.