2000 PLP 2000 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 23rd June, 1999. This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision No.241‑D of 1983 and Civil Revision No.242‑D of 1983 as the same arise out of common remand order.

2. Petitioner filed a suit for possession on the basis of sale‑deed, dated 17‑9‑1978 claiming that he had purchased the property in issue from Sikandar Hameed and others, successor of late Abdul Hameed Ghulam Qadir, respondent herein, also filed a suit for specific performance of. agreement of sale, dated 17‑9‑1978, claiming that there was an agreement of sale executed in his favour by late Abdul Hameed, predecessor of Sikandar Hameed and others. Both the suits were taken together. Learned Civil. Judge decreed the suit of the petitioner and dismissed the one filed by the respondent.

3. Feeling aggrieved the two appeals were filed which were decided by the learned Additional District Judged vide impugned order, dated 10‑4‑1983. Against the order of remand, the two revisions have been filed. '

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Issue No.5 had already been framed which was to the effect as to whether the agreement of Ghulam Qadar was fictitious and in view of that issue no further issue was required. It was added that in any case resettlement of issue or framing of additional issue could not be a ground for remanding of the case.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has also been heard.

6. Perusal of the record indicates that all the issues covering the controversies arising out of pleadings had been framed. Learned Additional District Judge, appears to be oblivious of the fact that Issue No.5 had already been framed on which evidence was recorded and the Court after considering evidence rendered detailed judgment. In law, mechanical remand has never been approved. It is a rule that unless the judgment is reversed in appeal, no remand is permissible, simply for the reason that additional issues have been framed. If any additional issue is framed, the Court can proceed under Order XLI, Rules 24 and 25 of C.P.C. Remand of the cases on technical reasons has never been approved by the superior Courts. Reference can be made to Malik Raheem Bakhsh Awan v. Ejaz Mahmood and another PLD 1990 Lah. 37.

7. In view of the rule laid in the precedent case and also clear provision of law, the order of remand is not sustainable. Even otherwise, no further issue was required and the Appellate Court was expected to render judgment on merit, after considering the entire evidence on record in the light‑of the issues already framed.

8. For the reasons above, these revision' petitions are allowed, impugned order is set aside with the result that the two appeals filed by respondents shall be deemed to be pending and be decided afresh by the learned Additional District Judge after hearing the parties in accordance with law. H.B.T./M‑239/L Revision petition allowed