' The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the petitioner filed a suit 9 for partition and possession in the Court of Civil Judge Ist Class, Lahore on 4-1-1978. The contents of the plaint reveal that there were two Evacuee Properties bearing No.2516-D and 2630-D situated in Kucha Dogran, inside Shahalmi Glte, Lahore. According to the record of Lahore Municipal Corporation for the year, 1940, the said two properties were amalgamated under one Property No.2516-D owned by Mohan Lal son of Madan Lal. The petitioner-plaintiff applied for the transfer of Prorrty No.2516-D during the settlement operation, which was transferred in his name by the Settlement Department for Rs.40,000. The PTD was also issued in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff of Property No.2516-D in the year, 1963. Subsequently, the Settlement Department ordered that Properties Nos.2516-D and 2630-D were different properties and Property No.2630-D was transferred to the respondent-defendant. The properties were not demarcated by the Settlement Department. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit qua the disputed property but the same was withdrawn by him. The contents of plaint further reveal that it was claimed by the petitioner- plaintiff that the defendant was in possession of a big portion of the Property bearing No.2516-D, which in fact was owned by the petitioner-plaintiff and he is entitled to the possession of more than three rooms which are now in possession of the respondent-defendant, therefore, it was prayed that decree for partition and possession of Property No.2516-D be passed in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. The respondent-defendant filed written statement controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint. Wherein, the respondent-defendant took a stand in the written statement that Properties Nos.2630-D and 2516-D were separate properties bearing different evacuee owners and the suit for partition was not maintainable. The properties were separately transferred by the Settlement Department in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff and husband of the "respondent- defendant. Out of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- ' ISSUES
(1) Whether the property in dispute is liable to partition? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is misconceived and not maintainable? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? If so, its effect? OPD
(4) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi? OPD
(7) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD
(8) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
(9) Whether the suit is within time? OPP
(10) Whether the suit is not correctly valued for the purpose of court-fee? If so, what is the correct valuation and its effect? OPD
(11) Whether the matter between the parties is res judicata? OPP
(12) Relief.
' The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 20-11-1985. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore, who also dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 6-2-1994. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that cause in dispute was put to try under as many as 12 issues including issue about relief. Issue No.4 is as under:-- "Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD"
' He further submits that the learned trial court had resolved Issues Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 to 11 against the petitioner-plaintiff, but Issue No.4 was decided against the respondent-defendant. The learned first Appellate Court has upheld the decision of the learned trial Court under Issues Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 11 but reversed the decision under Issue No.4 by holding that the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction. He further submits that decision of the learned trial Court on Issue No.4 for being what it was i.e. That the said Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, the decision on Issues Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 11 could to be sustained and that one sentence judgment expressed by the learned first Appellate Court reversing the decision of the learned trial Court on Issue No.4, cannot be equated with a lawful judgment to confer jurisdiction on the learned first Appellate Court to reverse the findings of the learned trial Court thereunder and that too without an appeal having been filed by the respondent-defendant for challenging the decision about jurisdiction. He summed-up his argument that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial Court in addition to suffering from misreading of material evidence on the record, is also liable to be reversed for the reason that it is not in consonance with the law on the subject.
3. The learned counsel of the respondent submits that the petitioner has not attached certified copies of all the documents, therefore, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that the petitioner has filed revision petition before this Court on 7-5-1994. Office has raised the following objections on 7-5-1994 with direction to remove the same within 7 days:--
(i) Court-fee is insufficient to the extent of Rs.10.
(ii) Impugned order to be flagged and pages marked according to Index/ pages are not marked.
(iii) Please affix Revenue stamp of 80/75 paisas on each non-judicial sheets, pay court-fee Rs.2 on decree and 8 Annas on each sheet to certified copies.
' The petitioner did not remove the objection. The office directed the petitioner to remove the following objection within 3 days on 17-10-1996 vide Diary No.7304:-- "Please remove Objections Nos.1, 2, 3 and 27 within 3 days."
' The petitioner removed the said objection and re-filed the revision petition in the office on 27-3- 1997 and office fixed the date of hearing on 31-3-1997. The case was adjourned on the ground that the counsel of the petitioner had to participate in the funeral ceremony of his son. The petitioner had also filed C.M. No.2 of 1997 for condonation of delay, wherein the petitioner had not furnished sufficient cause for condonation of delay. He further submits that both the Cour below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner, therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon" Muhammad Anwar, v. Arshad Jillani." PLD 1988 Lah 264 and "Raham Khan v. Mian Yousaf Shah" (1996 MLD 338).
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has filed revision petition within time before this Court as office has not raised any objection that the revision petition is time-barred. Objection sheet No.1 is depicted as such. Office has raised objection on 7-5-1994 with certain direction to the petitioner to remove objection within 7 days. Subsequently, office raised objection on 17-10-1996 to remove the objection within 3-days, whereas the petitioner had re-filed revision petition after removing the said objections, in the office on 27-3-1997, therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, this revision petition has become time-barred. It is admitted fact that office had not fixed this case as objection case before this Court, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel of the respondent that the revision petition has become time-barred, has not force in view of law laid. Down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Mst. Sabran Bi's case" 2000 SCMR 847.
6. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned judgment of the first Appellate Court to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- "The learned trial Court was justified to decide issue No.1 against the plaintiff and findings thereon, are upheld. So far as findings on Issues Nos.2, 3, 5 to 9 are concerned, I also find that the claim of the plaintiff was vexatious, he had not come to the Court with clean hands, had no locus standi and by his own conduct, was estopped to bring this suit. Similarly, the trial Court was justified to hold that the plaintiff-appellant remained a party to the allotment or properties since 8-2-1962 and the defendant- respondent never accepted his plea of joint property and thus the present suit having been instituted was clearly barred by time. All these issues have correctly been decided against the plaintiff and the findings thereon are upheld."
Mere reading of the aforesaid findings of the first Appellate Court clearly reveal that the first Appellate Court has decided the appeal of the petitioner without judicial application of mind which is not in consonance with law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Mollha Ejahar Ali v.
Government of East Pakistan and others" (PLD 1970 SC 173), meaning thereby the learned first Appellate Court has decided the appeal in violation of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, which is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189. And 190 of the Constitution. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has attached certified copies of all the required documents which were before the Courts below, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel of the respondent that the petitioner has not filed certified copies of the documents, has no force. It is settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. The judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner are distinguished on facts and law. The learned first Appellate Court had decided the appeal of the petitioner without judicial application of mind.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned judgment, dated 6-2-1994 passed by the first Appellate Court is set aside, meaning thereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending adjudication. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Lahore on 12-4-2004, the learned District Judge is directed either to hear this case himself or entrust the same to any other learned Additional District Judge who is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law after proper appreciation of evidence on record preferably within six-months positively.
8. The parties and their learned counsel are directed to co-operate with the first Appellate Court so that the matter shall be concluded within prescribed period. In case, any of the parties, fails to co- operate with the first Appellate Court, then the first Appellate Court shall invoke penal provision against the said party.
' With these observations, this revision petition is disposed of.