Remand of case to Trial Court

During the pendency of the revision petition, the defendant, who was the original owner of the suit property passed away, therefore, his legal heirs were impleaded as respondents in the revision petition

Respondents submitted an. application for submission of a fresh written statement before the Trial Court

High Court, considering their defence, remanded the case to the trial Court permitting them to file a fresh written statement

Held, that when the plaintiffs' plaint had been rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that it did not disclose cause of action, the filing of an application by the legal heirs of the defendant i.e. the respondents for permission to file afresh written statement was not a valid ground with the High Court for setting aside the order of rejection of plaint and dismissal of appeal

High Court had no reason to dilate upon the application filed by the legal heirs of the defendant for permission to file afresh written statement as well as on the application of the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint when the plaintiffs were fighting for survival of their lis and were under obligation to convince the revisional court/High Court in that their plaint did disclose a cause of action, and it had wrongly been rejected by the Trial Court

Appeal was allowed, impugned remand order was set-aside and it was directed that the revision petition would be deemed to be pending before the High Court, which shall decide the same on its own merits.

Remand should not be made in routine and where evidence on record was sufficient for Appellate Court to pronounce judgment and decide the issue, remand of case for fresh decision was not necessary

Reasons advanced, in the present case, by Appellate Court for remanding case to Trial Court were neither in line with settled law nor supported by record

Purpose of Appellate Court was to correct misreading and non-reading of evidence, if in its view any such misreading and non-reading was committed by Trial Court

Trial Court's finding, in circumstances, were based on presumption but instead of recording its own findings, it remanded the matter to Trial Court

Order of Appellate Court remanding the case was set aside

Revision Petition was allowed accordingly.

Prosecution witnesses were cross-examined during trial by the accused himself but his ability to cross-examine could not be substituted with that of a counsel

Duty was conferred upon the Trial Court to cross-examine the witnesses to extract the truth to arrive at a just decision of the case but in circumstances of the case Trial Court did not conduct the trial in accordance with S. 340, Cr.P.C. and Art. 61 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Statement of accused in terms of S. 342, Cr.P.C. had not been recorded in accordance with its spirit

Trial Court had observed in the impugned judgment that accused was apprehended with the robbed mobile, yet such question was not put to the accused while recording his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., thereby he was deprived from explaining his position to that extent

Perusal of record also showed that statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C. had not been recorded in accordance with S. 364(2), Cr.P.C., which provided that a judge "shall" certify under his own hand that examination was taken in his presence and hearing and that the record contained a full and true account of statement made by the accused

Impugned judgment of Trial Court was set aside, case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh with the direction that accused be provided an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses through a counsel and further re-examine accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C. in accordance with provisions of S. 364, Cr.P.C. by inviting his attention to all incriminating pieces of evidence on record

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Trial Court during the trial had put a question to the accused regarding recovery of dead body but the date and time mentioned therein was different from the date and time mentioned in mashirnama of recovery of dead body

No question regarding last seen evidence was put by the Trial Court

Signatures of accused were missing from his statement

Many lacunas were found in the statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C, therefore, impugned judgment of Trial Court was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court with direction to record statement of accused afresh with all the relevant questions which were brought before the court during trial

Accused was granted bail with direction to the Trial Court to take appropriate action against him in case he misused the concession of bail

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.