' This revision petition is directed against the judgment, dated 15-3-2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali whereby appeal brought by petitioners against the judgment dated 10-9-2001 passed by learned Civil Judge, Mianwali was accepted and case was remanded for decision afresh.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Mst.Ameer Khatoon, respondent filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the petitioners. The petitioners appeared before trial Court and on the pleadings of parties, issues were framed.
3. After recording evidence trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 10-9-2001. The petitioners filed appeal against said judgment which was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali vide judgment, dated 15-3-2002, and case was remanded for decision afresh.
Hence this revision petition.
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Appellate Court remanded the case only on the ground that documents exhibited during evidence were not, duly signed by learned Civil Judge.
Further submits that it was merely irregularity and there was no justification for remand of case, therefore, impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. He has prayed for issuance' of direction to the learned Appellate Court to dispose of appeal on merits.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that it was not necessary for the Appellate Court to remand the case merely for failure to sign documents tendered in evidence. Further submits that he has no objection if impugned judgment is set aside and learned -Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law within a reasonable time.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above learned Additional District Judge remanded the case only on the ground that documents tendered in evidence and exhibited did not bear signatures of learned Civil Judge. It A is mere procedural irregularity which is curable and there was no justification to remand the case, on that account alone. Reliance in this respect can be placed upon Pribhadinomal Methumal and others v. Mt. Chuti and others AIR 1933 Sind 379 and Talehmand and others v. Mst. Aisha Bibi PLD 1994 Lah.
399. Moreover none should suffer on account of act of the Court. This Court in the case of Hakim Khan v. Aurangzeb and another PLD 1975 Lah. 1'170 laid down the following rule about the interpretation of Order XIII, rule 4, C.P.C.:-- "According to law in,spite of an omission on the part of the trial Court in strictly following the procedure as laid down in Order XIII, rule 4, C.P.C. The documents placed on record can be looked into and considered while deciding the Case. Moreover, if any such omission has been committed by the Court then it is not due to the fault of the party concerned. In the circumstances there could be no reason as to why such party should be penalized for the omission of the Court."
' Later on the same proposition was again considered in the case of Muhammad Siddique and 2 others v. Faqir Muhammad and another 1993 CLC 1158 (Lahore) wherein the following rule was laid down:-- "Mere failure to exhibit a document formally would not make any difference and if was found necessary for just decision of the case, the material relied upon by the party should be summoned and treated as evidence in the case without any formalities."
' So impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Even otherwise as mentioned earlier learned counsel for the respondent too has no objection if judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge is set aside. In these circumstances I find that impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition is accepted, impugned judgment is set aside and learned Additional District Judge is directed to dispose of appeal on merits and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the parties have prayed for I issuance of a direction to learned Additional District Judge to dispose of appeal within a reasonable time. The case is pending since 28-9-1996, therefore, learned Additional District Judge is directed to dispose of appeal within three months (till 30-1-2003). The parties shall appear before learned Additional District Judge on 16-11-2002. No order as to costs.