1998 PLP 250 (MLD)

(1) Whether the instant suit is time-barred? OPD (2) Whether the plaintiff has got no any locus standi to file the instant suit? OPD (3) If Issue No.2 is proved in the affirmative and then if the defendant is entitled to recover special costs from the plaintiff? OPD (4) Whether the instant suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD (5) Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession? OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit-land? OPP (7) If Issue No.6 is proved in the affirmative then if the plaintiff entitled to get a decree for possession? OPP (8) Relief.

5. After recording evidence of the parties, wished to be adduced and, of course, providing duo opportunity of being herd to them, learned Civil Judge, then seized of the matter, resolved Issues Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 against the petitioner/defendant while issues Nos.6 and 7 were answered in the affirmative in favour of respondents/plaintiffs and gait was decreed was Judgment and decree dated 13-12-1987. It was assailed in appeal, which, was entrusted to an Additional District Judge, who, affirmed and upheld the findings and maintained the decree by means of an order passed on 5-7-1989: By the sang; however, the petitioner/defendant was hold entity to compensation with regard to construction raised over snit property and the case was remanded to learned Trial Court for determination of compensation and amount of Malba on suit property through it commission And payment to the petitioner/defendant: 6: Same have been called in question in instant revision Petition Oil the grounds enumerated in paragraph No.3 thereof: 7: Reiterating it, learned counsel for petitioner has, inter alia, contended that the judgment/order dated 5-7-1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge not only offends the terms and provision of rule 31 of Order XLI, C:P:C: but also dame is no judgment in the eye of law: 8: Conversely, impugned judgment/order and decree has been acclaimed to be correct in all respects.

9. Since second appal, against order of First Appellate Court, does not lie in terms of rule 1(4) of Order XLIII, C:P:C, revision petition is competent and no exception thereto has, therefore, Won taken by adversary of the petitioner/defendant, 10, A bare and bald perusal and cursory glance judgment/order of learned First Appellate Court evinces that no findings on Issues Nos. l to 5 stand recorded therein, Even conclusions and Inferences gathered and drawn by learned trial Court have not been touched and commented upon therein, therefore, follows that learned Additional District Judge has failed to dilate important question including that of limitation and plea of adverse possession and same have gone unresolved, of course, after due appraisal and appreciation, in its true perspective, of evidence data and material on record. Undoubtedly aspects reduced into issues, indicated above, did not receive due consideration. When important points of law or mixed questions of law and fact are involved in a "lis", Appellate Court must indicate and identify it and give reasons for its decision. Such course, as adopted in the instance has been held to be in total disregard of provisions of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C., in Miran alias Mir Muhammad v. Ghulam Hussain (PLD 1985 Karachi 674) and Ch. Abdul Kabeer v. Mian Abdul Wahid and others (1968 SCMR 464).

11. Specific rule of Order XLI, C.P.C., under which, remand had been directed, has also not been indicated. Ambiguity on the score particulary far trial Court also prevails thereby.

12. Upshot of above discussion is that revision succeeds, impugned judgment/remand order dated 5-7-1959 passed by teed Additional District Judge is set aside being unsustainable in law arid appeal is remitted for proper adjudication encompassing and Embracing entire points for determination by learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar, himself, A.A:/N-74/L Case remanded: