1918 PLP 168 (SCMR)

ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.‑This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order made by a learned Judge of the Peshawar High Court on the lot of October, 1977, by which he has accepted revision application presented by respondent Haider Khan, and remanded the case to the trial Court with the direction that the parties to the suit be required to produce sufficient evidence in regard to their respective claims. The petitioner Aziz Khan bad filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the owner‑In‑possession of certain agricultural land situate in the area of village Sureai Payan in the district of Peshawar, and that Mutation No. 5097 attested on 26‑3‑1969 showing the sale of this land in favour of the, defendant was fraudulent and ineffective against his rights. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the finding that there was evidence to show that the plaintiff was present before the Revenue Officer when the impugned mutation was attested. The petitioner challenged this judgment by way of appeal, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, and his suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the appellate judgment and decree the defendant Haider Khan bled a revision petition in the High Court which, as already stated, hag been adapted. The learned Judge hag expressed the view that the evidence given by the Revenue Officials before the trial Court was extremely ekes‑by and not sufficient for arriving at any positive finding on the question issue. He has observed that the relevant evidence was in a very abridged form and thus it would be unsafe to derive any conclusion therefrom". On this view of the matter he has set aside the decree made by the lower appellate Court and remanded the case for fresh trial. Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge was fully satisfied wits the evidence brought on the record by the pastier, and wag able to arrive at a positive finding in favour of the plaintiff, and, therefore, the learned Judge in the High Court was in error in thinking that the evidence was sketchy or abridged and not sufficient for coming to a positive conclusion. It is contended that the case should not have been remanded so as to allow the defendant an opportunity to fill up the lacuna in his case. After perusing the available record we are of the view that the order made by the High Court is eminently just end proper. The evidence of the revenue officials was undoubtedly important, and it wad, therefore, necessary for the trial Court to record their detailed statements. At this was not done, the High Court was right in thinking that the matter be reminded to the trial Court for fresh proceedings. The petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.